That smell is just the smell of clean, as there are no perfumes.
I suppose the safety reasons are valid.
For the record, this forumula has exactly 5 ingredients, all of which are active.
In no particular order....
(real) lye soap
sodium-chloride
sodium-carbonite
sodium-tetraborate
sodium-triphosphate.
All four sodiums are white powders, while the soap looks like shredded American cheese.
I hope you mean sodium carbonate, not sodium carbonite which is an explosive! Yes, sorry. Sodium Carbonate, otherwise known as washing soda.
Are you still sending out samples? I would like to try a bit.
PM me with your address. |
|
|
|
I'd like to try it but my wife has very sensitive skin so I know it's unlikely I'd ever purchase any.
Probably wise. Like I said, this is strong stuff that cannot be found on the retail market anymore. |
|
|
|
Would the world have been better off without Columbus?
Impossible to know, but I would have to say yes. All Columbus managed to do was terrorize an island tribe and improperly end up credited with discovery of a land that he wasn't looking for, didn't believe in and died with the idea that he actually made it to India. There is a good reason that we don't call this landmass "Columbia". Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.
That would be a fine first step. It's going beyond that, that is my concern. I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.
The ski industry might be hurting, but the local tourism will adapt in time. Who knows how many people didn't freeze to death this past winter? Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado. Well, that is interesting. The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.
As already noted, the tropics will not benefit, but nore will they significantly be effected unless they live on the shore. A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.
Even swampland has value to mankind, moreso than deserts. Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.
Depends on the relative rates. I'm guessing that the rate that the growing seasons of northern nations outpaces the growth of deserts, but I can't know that either. What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.
How do you know that? "Nothing" is what we've been doing for 6000+ years, and the planet has managed to take care of itself. The question is, is there anything that we can do to help mankind in the long run that won't cause significant harm in the short run? So far, the correct answer to that question is, "Not that we know of." |
|
|
|
I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know.
You invited me into this debate only to begin to insult me after you began to have your worldview challenged. I understand that you think that you know all and that the perspectives of others who disagree are worthy of contempt, but this will only lead to conflict in your life. I, for one, will not be participating in your delusions of grandeur. You now have the honor of becoming the very first person I shall ignore on this forum. |
|
|
|
The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly.
Okay, granted. Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.
In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized. And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect. He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land. Thus, his approximations were not useful. Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off. Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view. Columbus was a fail. 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either. What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk? Compared to what? A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system? If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk? There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided. Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide, warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. Unnecessary change is probably not good. You're guessing. It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far. Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself? No, I'm not. I'm speaking as an observer from distance. However, my own winter past was pretty mild also. Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more. Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter. Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there. got any support for those? The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.
Yes in fact. - More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
- This also applies for land area.
The first is true, the second is not. http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htmJust Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US. This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined. Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland. - No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).
Conceded. - The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
While this is true, it misses the main point. It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something. - Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert. Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere. Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?
Perhaps, but why should I trust either side? Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end. What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian? Should we "do something even if it's wrong"? What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present? Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well? |
|
|
|
17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities? Please address this. I am not familar with any particular petition. I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is. Is that an example of willful ignorance? It's an example of willful defiance. |
|
|
|
I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.
I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites? Over the course of a decade. Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking. I will not accept homework assignments from my students. I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students. I was refering to yourself, young man. What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world.
What you are witnessing is the refusal of an old man to bend to the will of some young asshole who want's him to watch some youtube video that the young one thinks will change his mind. The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.
Assume what you want, but even if it is as you claim, it doesn't make much difference. I don't believe that global warming is predominately caused by humans, so I don't believe that it's our fault whether some spotted lizard can't make it over the mountians. If it concerns you, you are free to join others like yourself and capture, then transport and release, whatever species you believe deserves the aid. If you believe that I could only hold that viewpoint because of some personality fault, mental block, or simply because I haven't had the benefit of reading the same articles as yourself; I care not. |
|
|
|
2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false. Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also. Did we do that too? Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change. Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system. Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus). That has zero to do with the point. 3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "
Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy. It's simply not their field. So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all. Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result. Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada. Lets not make such conjectures, okay? If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea. I question whether or not you even could accelerate it. Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak. Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.
Historically, most heretics were wrong. Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong. 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean. The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.  And this alters my point, how exactly? I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now. It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. Unnecessary change is probably not good. You're guessing. It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far. 14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame. Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame. Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking. I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land. Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost. Cities are just collections of people. Move. Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter. If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist. "Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert. Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there. got any support for those? The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets. 17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides. Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies. If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't? What about it? How do I know that it isn't tainted too? [ |
|
|
|
I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.
I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites? Over the course of a decade. Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking. I will not accept homework assignments from my students. |
|
|
|
17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities? Please address this. I am not familar with any particular petition. I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is. |
|
|
|
19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
Most being the oparative word. What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are? Please address this. I'm aware of the effects of white ice on reflecting solar IR back into space. Again, the regions near the poles could stand a great deal of warming and are likley to get most of it anyway. |
|
|
|
I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.
I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites? Over the course of a decade. |
|
|
|
TheBitcoinChemist,
Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.
If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years. Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you. Don't be shy. I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor. I'm sure you can come up with something! Nothing comes to mind? You seem rather proactive about giving the standard libertarian answers regarding global warming. Please share. What books or websites do you study to learn about the environment, ecology and climate change? I'm getting a sense that you're hesitant to share. Is that the case? Google, Wikipedia, hundreds of websites & blogs, just to name a few. Much of it collected by my own intellect. I am not an authority, this is true, but nor am I some talking head with no independent thought. Just keep thinking that I'm echoing libertarian thought, because if I am, then perhaps they are right? |
|
|
|
8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
Says who? Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration? And so what if they can't? More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused. Says who? Is that what you're asking? I'll tell you who says who. People who know what they're talking about. Your ignorance on this matter demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this. Neither do you. And if qualfications mattered in any such way, 70% of the signers to IPCC and all of Congress wouldn't have any say in it either. That would actually be ideal, but unfortunately for the realists in this world the opinions of the unqualified most certainly matter. You have the opportunity to remedy this by reading real scientific publications as opposed to recommended reading by your favorite libertarian.
I have read exactly zero on this matter published by anyone that I know was a libertarian. You obviously are not knowledgeable in this area. I already explained this. Animals hit barriers. Those barriers are suburban and urban areas, bodies of water (or lack of bodies of water), mountains, etc.
So now I'm not knowledgable? Keep digging. Read this article to understand fully what is happening. If you don't, then I have proof that you wish to keep yourself within your own manufactured bubble of ignorance.
I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude. |
|
|
|
I've got some extra time. Here are my responses. 2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false. Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also. Did we do that too? Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change. Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system. 3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "
Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy. It's simply not their field. So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all. Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result. Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada. Lets not make such conjectures, okay? 4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming. That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause. Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false. This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age. http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.htmlCrackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem". Do you believe this alters my point? 5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming. It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring. I never claimed that it wasn't. 6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades. This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm. In true bitcoin fashion, it's also a cause for exploring Canadian REIT's 8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
Says who? Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration? And so what if they can't? More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused. Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples. Three examples of species that won't need to migrate, for they can all live in much warmer climates than they currently do. 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean. The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect. And this alters my point, how exactly? 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. 14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame. Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame. Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking. I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land. Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost. Cities are just collections of people. Move. Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter. If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't desrve to exist. 16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
But not over the past 10,000 years. Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost. Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity. Thank you for making my point. 17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides. Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies. 20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
According to whom? The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education. Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity. Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate. [/quote] Still doesn't alter the point. |
|
|
|
They are talking in buying power and Dollars have not halved in buying power in the last months.
Okay, but it has in the past 15 years. |
|
|
|
TheBitcoinChemist,
Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.
If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years. Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you. Don't be shy. I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor. |
|
|
|
The rebuttal would be that the dollar could also be worth 50% less the next day.
That is a lot less likely to happen to the dollar then with bitcoins.. What are you comparing the Dollar to in this assumption, because when people say "bitcoins could drop in value by half tommorrow" the common assumption is that is compared to US $. If the reverse comparison is also true, then the dollar has already drop significantly over the past couple of months alone, and by orders of magnitude over the past three years. |
|
|
|
I won't justify this feeble attempt at 'appeal to authority' logic fail. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
