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

[Toxic2040]

... ever seen what happens ...
-snipped-

Sorry..ain't buying it. I think you know something is happening and is continuing to happen this century. The data is sound and has been reviewed many times.

While I agree with you that the Earth will continue its orbit regardless of what humanity does I think it naive to doubt what hard science has proven. Co2 levels are rising at a extraordinary rate. Pumping billions of barrels of hydrocarbons from beneath the ground and then burning it just does not sound like a good idea any more. Are innovation and change difficult? Yes..  Is it expensive to be a first mover in a nascent market?  Yes..extremely so.. 
Things change and we grow wiser.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/28/climate-change-expert-aaron-doering-charged-with-choking-his-fiance/

... when the lying and shilling becomes too much in the face of cool factual analysis, all that is left is demented rage and violent incoherence I guess.

... climate science never is and never will be a 'hard science', it's full of charlatans and political appointees. It's basically a renegade academic cult masquerading as a branch of science now, with fully-developed propaganda and PR smearing units targetting dissenters ("deniers").

That escalated quickly...

en garde

Do not put words into my mouth, I never said or implied that. I said and was implying that scientific principles have been brought to bear on these problem's and the results are pretty conclusive in my "humble" opinion. If you wish to use incendiary rhetoric and some non-tangential quote from the Post(the Post for God's sake man!) be my guest. If you think my responses are demented and incoherent feel free to ignore me. Otherwise, perhaps listen to what I am saying because not only can I(and have) pull up reams of accredited papers by the worlds leading scientists. I have seen it with mine own eye's. 30+ years in the field in not only hazardous remediation but the energy sector as well. It's not a pretty site. The cavalier attitude many people seem to have towards responsible, sustainable shepherding of this planet..this Earth we call home is sickening to me on a fundamental level.

[1714231111]

1714231111

[1714231111]

1714231111

[1714231111]

1714231111

[1714231111]

1714231111

[1714231111]

1714231111

[realr0ach]

Co2 levels are rising at a extraordinary rate

I wonder who was burning all that gasoline 600 million years ago to send c02 through the roof which didn't even seem to have a correlation with temperature, but it did cause plants to be more efficient, create more oxygen, and caused some insects like dragonflys to be the size of cars.

[HairyMaclairy]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

[realr0ach]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Got it.  The govt does not lie.  Everything on CNN is true.  And even though the media, banking system, and most powerful govt lobbies are all Jewish controlled, Jews do not control the govt either.  And "climate change science" that does not directly align with the govt pre-scripted conclusion is not immediately defunded and refused to be published either.

[Paashaas]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078682801954799617.html

So BUY BTC skip ETH for some enthusiasts.

Great tweetstorm on the current state of ETH.  

I didn’t buy into the ETH ICO @ 2,000 ETH/BTC because I thought ETH was a scam. Turns out I was right. Doesn’t help that I could have been rich along the way.  

Nice thread indeed.

Top comment on Reddit...

He's trying too hard. Tuur, just a many other 'influencers', got lucky because they invested early in Bitcoin. Now they are self-proclaimed experts

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/aac4hr/tuurs_criticism_discussion_thread/

[Arriemoller]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

[Toxic2040]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

 

[nikauforest]

Well I am happy to make money off of the 97% pushing there climate agenda.
https://www.carbonfund.co.nz/

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

https://www.thegwpf.com/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

 

here let me just update that for you since conveniently for your argument left out the last two years of the chart data ... always happens that way huh?



 

[HairyMaclairy]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

It’s not a vote.  It’s 97% agreement.  Try getting 97% of bitcoiners to agree on something.  

[nikauforest]

Well I am happy to make money off of the 97% pushing their climate agenda.
https://www.carbonfund.co.nz/

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

https://www.thegwpf.com/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

[HairyMaclairy]

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

We had that issue in my country.  Some background checks were done on the scientists that disagreed with the 97%.  It turns out they were funded by an independent policy think tank. Whose largest donor was a large coal company.

Sometimes even scientists are corrupt. 

[realr0ach]

Can any of you shitcoiners explain the following phenomenon?  One of the main aspects of a Ponzi are the supposed guaranteed gains just by participating at all.  You can argue whether bitcoin itself is a Ponzi or not, but that's tangential to this subject.  The subject is people that use the word "hodl" imply the gains are guaranteed.  If bitcoin is marketed as a hodl ponzi - and face it, that is the only way bitcoin is marketed to the public, it's not marketed in any other way - how is it not a Ponzi by default? lol.

A Ponzi scheme: "Maintaining the illusion of a sustainable business as long as there continue to be new investors willing to contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and are willing to believe in the non-existent assets that they are purported to own."

[marcus_of_augustus]

... and straight in there with the usual bodged data and smear tactics tricks.

"Man-made climate change" was never about the science, they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Any chance of useful debate or reasoning is gone now ... perhaps that is just how the socialists like it?

[realr0ach]

they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Stop using the rat kike Ben Shapiro definition of communism and socialism.  Communism is a Jewish monetary scam to centralize all the wealth, power, and assets so the Jews can steal it all and rule over the populace as slaves like they did in Russia.  Then when the system inevitably implodes, the assets are all transfered off to the Yiddish controllers.  Why do you think just about every single Russian Oligarch who ended up with the stolen wealth of Russia is Jewish?

[HairyMaclairy]

... and straight in there with the usual bodged data and smear tactics tricks.

"Man-made climate change" was never about the science, they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Any chance of useful debate or reasoning is gone now ... perhaps that is just how the socialists like it?

I’m a socialist.  Happy to chat further.

[jojo69]

Just because the globalists are using a crisis to expand their power it does not necessarily follow that the crisis does not exist.

This is sloppy logic Marcus, try harder.

Hairy, you are essentializing and verging on name calling, try harder.

[realr0ach]

I’m a socialist.  Happy to chat further.

Did I mention both HairyMaclairy and Jojo69 are Jew shills?

[HairyMaclairy]

Just because the globalists are using a crisis to expand their power it does not necessarily follow that the crisis does not exist.

This is sloppy logic Marcus, try harder.

Hairy, you are essentializing and verging on name calling, try harder.

To be fair, I am drunk.  On Edinburgh Christmas Gin. Quite nice.

[Toxic2040]

here let me just update that for you since conveniently for your argument left out the last two years of the chart data ... always happens that way huh?

 

... and straight in there with the usual bodged data and smear tactics tricks.

"Man-made climate change" was never about the science, they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Any chance of useful debate or reasoning is gone now ... perhaps that is just how the socialists like it?

weak sauce

This is why I advocate inter-disciplinary training. Cherry picking one data point and crafting it to a narrative is old hat. However if you stand back and take a look at the whole picture it is much more obvious...to some. Be that as it may..I have the feeling Marcus that you are half into your cup and just looking for a punching bag. So be it.

Peace

p.s. the chart was of a model that was projected in 2006 I believe with actual data well within the 2 sigma delta. these models have been refined and are even more highly accurate today but i could not be arsed to find the latest. the more concerning threat is not climate change anyway its rising co2 levels.