Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[rafanadal]

I wonder what proportion of the alt-right thinks the earth is flat.  10%?  30%? 75%?

0%, the alt right does not deny science, leftists on the other hand seem to have a hard time with the concept of per capita lol, racial differences in IQ, genetic clusters etc.  

Gay frogs guy scientifically proved that Hillary Clinton is a Reptilian shape shifter.  How do you guys sleep at night knowing that Donald Trump might actually be Hillary Clinton in shape shift form? 

Lol you're confusing the Mike Cernovich and alex jones type with the alt right, so gullible.

[1714049730]

1714049730

[1714049730]

1714049730

[1714049730]

1714049730

[mymenace]

I wonder what proportion of the alt-right thinks the earth is flat.  10%?  30%? 75%?

0%, the alt right does not deny science, leftists on the other hand seem to have a hard time with the concept of per capita lol, racial differences in IQ, genetic clusters etc.  

Gay frogs guy scientifically proved that Hillary Clinton is a Reptilian shape shifter.  How do you guys sleep at night knowing that Donald Trump might actually be Hillary Clinton in shape shift form?  

Lol you're confusing the Mike Cernovich and alex jones type with the alt right, so gullible.

luv this alt right, alt left stuff

CNN - Russia colluded with Trump

FOX - Russia colluded with Hillary and Obama

someone's lying

so we now play spot the fake news



narrative looks likes the alt left are capitulating and asking everyone to at least agree Russia meddled in elections with wait for it - Social Media and protests

Why are they not asking for impeachment?

[HairyMaclairy]

Never heard of the Mike guy.  

Latest news is that The_Donald and 4Chan have proven that the Florida shooting was a false flag operation by the US government.  Which is really confusing because why would Donald Trump run a false flag operation?  The only reasonable explanation is that the Repitilians have gotten past the Secret Service and Hillary ran the operation from inside the White House. 

[mymenace]

Never heard of the Mike guy.  

Latest news is that The_Donald and 4Chan have proven that the Florida shooting was a false flag operation by the US government.  Which is really confusing because why would Donald Trump run a false flag operation?  The only reasonable explanation is that the Repitilians have gotten past the Secret Service.  

The_Donald and 4Chan (they referring to US deep state government - Corrupt DOJ/FBI/CIA operatives in cooperation with corrupt special agents from all secret services around the world. FOX is talking about the US deep state government openly)

Learn more at #Qanon

alt right goin full deep cover, exposing a lot more than false flags

time will tell how true it is

[Ibian]

so we now play spot the fake news

It's the commies. It's always the commies.

Which also means that the right tells the truth in proportion to how often the left lies. There are exceptions in both camps. CHOOSE WISELY.

[HairyMaclairy]

so we now play spot the fake news

It's the commies. It's always the commies.

Which also means that the right tells the truth in proportion to how often the left lies. There are exceptions in both camps. CHOOSE WISELY.

The thing is, the alt-right is so full of the most ridiculous mind blowing bullshit on the simplest of subjects, but expects their scientific analysis of climate change to be taken seriously.  They are such a pack of idiots all you can do is laugh.

[Ibian]

Also re: extinction event: Yes, but not because of anything climate related. Simply because we will run out of food.

We can make enough food for 9 billion people, or whatever number is being thrown around. If we can support 9 billion, we will overshoot and hit 10-12 billion. Then we will run out of food, and overcorrect to somewhere below 9 billion.

Billions of people are going to die. It won't be an extinction level event, but it will end the modern world as we know it. And it will be horrific. Enjoy!

[Ibian]

so we now play spot the fake news

It's the commies. It's always the commies.

Which also means that the right tells the truth in proportion to how often the left lies. There are exceptions in both camps. CHOOSE WISELY.

The thing is, the alt-right is so full of the most ridiculous mind blowing bullshit on the simplest of subjects, but expects their scientific analysis of climate change to be taken seriously.  They are such a pack of idiots all you can do is laugh.

Let's start with one concrete example instead of just throwing left-type slander. Go.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I'd be quite happy with lower temperatures. Winter is more enjoyable with proper powder snow, and summer wouldn't make me stay inside 24/7 if it didn't cause me to sweat all fucking day.

On that note, I've read about an upcoming mini ice age a few times. Is there any recent update on that that confirms or rejects it?

Vast question.

- climate is whether over 30 years. So it's too soon to tell.
- There was a global warming during the last 100 years of about 0.1°C/10years
- No more warming since 1998, once you remove El Nino/LaNina effects (which cancel each other in time)
- Sun is probably having a period of low activity, that doesn't change much the energy it sends to us, but less activity (= less spots) means less magnetic field, means more cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere, meaning more seeded clouds, thus more albedo and then cold coming in... but this is still a theory
- look here for the latest temps : https://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
- best site ever for these questions : https://wattsupwiththat.com/

- last but not least : cold kills; warm weather makes our life easier.

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

All of science and anything empirical is ultimately a hypothesis. No amount confirmations (that turns things into theories and laws in academia) can guarantee with certainty that we've figured something out, rather than just witnessing an infinitely unlikely event.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if industrialization had an impact on global weather patterns. In chaotic system even the tiniest perturbation can trigger massive macroscopical changes.

However, I'm not quite convinced yet about us having any significant impact either for two reasons. Namely, I haven't studied the papers so I can't possibly know if there are any systematic errors, and I see too much bullshit going on in the media to not be heavily sceptical. I do lean towards human emissions of CO2 causing changes in climate, mostly because I've worked with people who study precisely that, but even if that turned out true I wouldn't be all that worried about it. Capitalism will come to the rescue and figure out a way to keep us nice and cozy regardless of weather conditions. With nuclear fusion pretty much around the corner energy won't be a concern and with that sorted out the overall state of the planet should be irrelevant. Things might change drastically (e.g. underground, on- and/or underwater or shielded off cities with indoor farming), but I don't see humans disappearing unless we nuke ourselves to hell or get wiped out by some rogue asteroid.

We were burning forests way before we burned coal and oil. In fact, any living creature affects the weather. I understand that at least one american state has legislation regarding cow farts.

But more importantly, co2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it's plant food. Which is food for everything else. The more co2, the more oxygen, the more life. It might just be a good thing.

I don't deny the possibility of that, since it would make sense. But our ecosystem is way more complex and has more knobs and dials that interact with each other than just CO2 and oxygen.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with population models, but there could very well be a point beyond which everything tips and triggers a reaction in the opposite direction.
E.g. more CO2 = more life, then at some point there's too much CO2 = less life, be it due to primary (an upper limit on how much can be held or used) or due to side effects (effects of increased CO2 on other parts of the ecosystem) of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans can easily die from drinking too much water at once, so "more oxygen" might not be an unequivocally good thing either (too much of it would eventually increase the pressure which can be fatal even without any other effects on the ecosystem).

You would have to explain how the proposed hypothesis works.

For starters, there isn't enough physical space available to sustain an infinite expansion of trees and whatnot, so eventually there would be surplus of CO2 that could not be turned into further oxygen. And too much CO2 is harmful to humans and animals.
If that was not the case however, and oxygen increased indefinitely, pressure would increase, again due to spatial limitations. That would increase the partial pressure of oxygen, which can lead to oxygen poisoning and by extension to death.

Of course there's still fucktons of space to go around on earth, but there's definitely a limit beyond which things could turn bad very quickly. And that's just the most apparent potential consequences that too much CO2 or O2 could have. Regardless of whether or not these are accurate and what the quantitative thresholds would look like, there are a lot more intricate effects to take into account in a dynamic system that is as closely interlinked as life on earth.

Neither of us have numbers, so let's just stick to what is known.

We know that oil and coal are essentially condensed co2. We also know that animals used to be way the fuck bigger, not just dinosaurs but also mammals and insects. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that not only was there more co2 in the past, but also more oxygen, not just because co2 turns into oxygen but also because higher levels of oxygen are likely to allow for larger animals, as muscles require oxygen to function.

So it seems that the atmosphere was denser in the past. And as co2 is deposited in the underground, it must become less dense over time, which means less able to support life.

So what is better? That we get less oxygen by way of less plants due to less co2, or that we get more?

Like I said, there's a limit. I don't disagree with more oxygen being better, but that can't go on indefinitely. I'm just disputing the overly simplistic stance that more CO2 = more O2 = always good.

[mymenace]

so we now play spot the fake news

It's the commies. It's always the commies.

Which also means that the right tells the truth in proportion to how often the left lies. There are exceptions in both camps. CHOOSE WISELY.

The thing is, the alt-right is so full of the most ridiculous mind blowing bullshit on the simplest of subjects, but expects their scientific analysis of climate change to be taken seriously.  They are such a pack of idiots all you can do is laugh.

there is a simple answer to climate change

Why keep cutting trees down and pollute more water _ the things that create air

Oh you cannot tax that so - carbon emission schemes to protect the climate

may well be climate change but they not doing nothing about it

even JFK spoke about climate change and still they do nothing about it


thus what spreads conspiracy theories - because something is hidden

[Ibian]

I'd be quite happy with lower temperatures. Winter is more enjoyable with proper powder snow, and summer wouldn't make me stay inside 24/7 if it didn't cause me to sweat all fucking day.

On that note, I've read about an upcoming mini ice age a few times. Is there any recent update on that that confirms or rejects it?

Vast question.

- climate is whether over 30 years. So it's too soon to tell.
- There was a global warming during the last 100 years of about 0.1°C/10years
- No more warming since 1998, once you remove El Nino/LaNina effects (which cancel each other in time)
- Sun is probably having a period of low activity, that doesn't change much the energy it sends to us, but less activity (= less spots) means less magnetic field, means more cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere, meaning more seeded clouds, thus more albedo and then cold coming in... but this is still a theory
- look here for the latest temps : https://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
- best site ever for these questions : https://wattsupwiththat.com/

- last but not least : cold kills; warm weather makes our life easier.

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

All of science and anything empirical is ultimately a hypothesis. No amount confirmations (that turns things into theories and laws in academia) can guarantee with certainty that we've figured something out, rather than just witnessing an infinitely unlikely event.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if industrialization had an impact on global weather patterns. In chaotic system even the tiniest perturbation can trigger massive macroscopical changes.

However, I'm not quite convinced yet about us having any significant impact either for two reasons. Namely, I haven't studied the papers so I can't possibly know if there are any systematic errors, and I see too much bullshit going on in the media to not be heavily sceptical. I do lean towards human emissions of CO2 causing changes in climate, mostly because I've worked with people who study precisely that, but even if that turned out true I wouldn't be all that worried about it. Capitalism will come to the rescue and figure out a way to keep us nice and cozy regardless of weather conditions. With nuclear fusion pretty much around the corner energy won't be a concern and with that sorted out the overall state of the planet should be irrelevant. Things might change drastically (e.g. underground, on- and/or underwater or shielded off cities with indoor farming), but I don't see humans disappearing unless we nuke ourselves to hell or get wiped out by some rogue asteroid.

We were burning forests way before we burned coal and oil. In fact, any living creature affects the weather. I understand that at least one american state has legislation regarding cow farts.

But more importantly, co2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it's plant food. Which is food for everything else. The more co2, the more oxygen, the more life. It might just be a good thing.

I don't deny the possibility of that, since it would make sense. But our ecosystem is way more complex and has more knobs and dials that interact with each other than just CO2 and oxygen.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with population models, but there could very well be a point beyond which everything tips and triggers a reaction in the opposite direction.
E.g. more CO2 = more life, then at some point there's too much CO2 = less life, be it due to primary (an upper limit on how much can be held or used) or due to side effects (effects of increased CO2 on other parts of the ecosystem) of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans can easily die from drinking too much water at once, so "more oxygen" might not be an unequivocally good thing either (too much of it would eventually increase the pressure which can be fatal even without any other effects on the ecosystem).

You would have to explain how the proposed hypothesis works.

For starters, there isn't enough physical space available to sustain an infinite expansion of trees and whatnot, so eventually there would be surplus of CO2 that could not be turned into further oxygen. And too much CO2 is harmful to humans and animals.
If that was not the case however, and oxygen increased indefinitely, pressure would increase, again due to spatial limitations. That would increase the partial pressure of oxygen, which can lead to oxygen poisoning and by extension to death.

Of course there's still fucktons of space to go around on earth, but there's definitely a limit beyond which things could turn bad very quickly. And that's just the most apparent potential consequences that too much CO2 or O2 could have. Regardless of whether or not these are accurate and what the quantitative thresholds would look like, there are a lot more intricate effects to take into account in a dynamic system that is as closely interlinked as life on earth.

Neither of us have numbers, so let's just stick to what is known.

We know that oil and coal are essentially condensed co2. We also know that animals used to be way the fuck bigger, not just dinosaurs but also mammals and insects. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that not only was there more co2 in the past, but also more oxygen, not just because co2 turns into oxygen but also because higher levels of oxygen are likely to allow for larger animals, as muscles require oxygen to function.

So it seems that the atmosphere was denser in the past. And as co2 is deposited in the underground, it must become less dense over time, which means less able to support life.

So what is better? That we get less oxygen by way of less plants due to less co2, or that we get more?

Like I said, there's a limit. I don't disagree with more oxygen being better, but that can't go on indefinitely. I'm just disputing the overly simplistic stance that more CO2 = more O2 = always good.

It can only go on until we run out of condensed co2, at which point we will be at levels that we know for a fact supported life, because we are here.

[HairyMaclairy]

In order to have a proper structured conversation about climate change or 9-11 or Sandy Hook or the Florida shooting is gonna take hours.  Sorry dude I don’t have hours right now.  

Even a small topic like why there is an NRA backed ban on research into gun violence would take a long time to do properly, even though on its face it’s a ridiculous law.  What is more anti-science than banning research ?

[conspirosphere.tk]

we should know by tomorrow if it's an IH&S or we're in for another bottom fishing.


https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/Th4QWy3u-ABRACADABRA-BITCOIN-BTC/

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

so we now play spot the fake news

It's the commies. It's always the commies.

Which also means that the right tells the truth in proportion to how often the left lies. There are exceptions in both camps. CHOOSE WISELY.

The thing is, the alt-right is so full of the most ridiculous mind blowing bullshit on the simplest of subjects, but expects their scientific analysis of climate change to be taken seriously.  They are such a pack of idiots all you can do is laugh.

I find the left more laughable right now. The right has its fair share of idiots, just like literally every single sufficiently large random sample of any population. But there currently is an overwhelming tilt of stupid to the left.

And I agree with quite a few of left principles, such as a UBI and at least some levels of universal health care. But not for the same reasons as the left generally would. I think that being taken care of for free corrupts people into complacency and misery.
But at the same time there's a correlation between violent revolution and extreme levels of income inequality. And while I strongly believe that everybody who has access to the internet gets exactly what they deserve from life, I don't want to eventually have some retards trying to kill me because I've been smart enough to move myself into a future that I'd consider desirable.

I hope that we don't have to even start arguing over the current state of the mainstream media, which is a complete fucking joke and with an obvious left-bias. It's blatantly obvious that they are not trying to argue policies but just making up excuses to attack the right like a cornered animal (the leftist media is the animal).

[Ibian]

In order to have a proper structured conversation about climate change or 9-11 or Sandy Hook or the Florida shooting is gonna take hours.  Sorry dude I don’t have hours right now.  

Even a small topic like why there is an NRA backed ban on research into gun violence would take a long time to do properly, even though on its face it’s a ridiculous law.  What is more anti-science than banning research ?

How about something simple and not very controversial, like say voting rights for women then?

[mymenace]

In order to have a proper structured conversation about climate change or 9-11 or Sandy Hook or the Florida shooting is gonna take hours.  Sorry dude I don’t have hours right now.  

Even a small topic like why there is an NRA backed ban on research into gun violence would take a long time to do properly, even though on its face it’s a ridiculous law.  

They are all ridiculous laws and events invented to create division (over regulate the population and create so much change that they give up and go with the narrative )


dismiss it all and make your own mind up on how it goes

don't let fake ass scientists, doctors, politicians, professors, geniuses tell it how it is.



what would you do if all you had was the environment to survive (like we did for 10's of thousands of years)

SURVIVE!!!

regardless of the environment you are in


learn to SURVIVE!!!



every job is fake except

food/water, shelter, health and education

if we are to survive we must focus on the right jobs.....(idealist sentiment should shoot myself in the head)

[HairyMaclairy]

Looks like Badger has crossed onto the continent and has decided to drive on the right side of the road.  Still sober though and still on the road.  Immigration checkpoint ahead.  

[flynn]

Also re: extinction event: Yes, but not because of anything climate related. Simply because we will run out of food.

We can make enough food for 9 billion people, or whatever number is being thrown around. If we can support 9 billion, we will overshoot and hit 10-12 billion. Then we will run out of food, and overcorrect to somewhere below 9 billion.

Billions of people are going to die. It won't be an extinction level event, but it will end the modern world as we know it. And it will be horrific. Enjoy!

Maybe it's not so dramatic.
You should watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&feature=youtu.be
It's really interesting on the subject.

[HairyMaclairy]

We are testing the bottom of the channel now.  Going sharply down right now would mean Badger is drunk after all. 

[realr0ach]

Even a small topic like why there is an NRA backed ban on research into gun violence would take a long time to do properly, even though on its face it’s a ridiculous law.  What is more anti-science than banning research ?

Listen you little gun grabbing, communist cuckold, there are only two possible options:  either the govt fears it's citizens because they have lots of weapons and you live free, or the citizens fear the govt and you live in tyranny.  Since most people live in fear of the govt, the citizens would probably need MORE weapons if anything.