My prediction for 2023

[dragonking2023]

Bitcoin has been speculation heaven since 2017 when all the main speculators from WS that got in.

Now you got Gary Gensler as head of SEC their man, it all tells all you need to know how the market is controlled and manipulated by few and their pals as in the scandal with FTX scams among others have shown. Bitcoin has become a Pump and Dump after 2017.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_bubble

 

.

Also the feds with the dreaded CBDC tells you all you need to know in digital currency trend

 

 

Russia wont use a nuke. The entire mess we are in its due to neocons

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/m6rb2a5tskpcxzesjk8hhzf96zh7w7

Edited August 6, 2023 by dragonking2023

[Dashyburn]

The entire mess we are in its due to neocons....

 

That and the narcissistic psychopaths that for some unknown reason we allow into positions of leadership, which is unavoidable due to the drive of these kinds of humans that operate on a completely different wavelength than humans not afflicted with these particular personality traits.

 

Russia wont use a nuke......

 

No Russia won't, but the narcissistic psychopath in charge of that entire country will, not being smart but if you only have a 'glancing' understanding of those 2 traits then study them and realise.

 

Best analogy I can give is don't think for one moment that the spoilt little brat in the sandpit who finally exhausts all his 'units' and has to leave the sandpit, won't kick everybody's castles into dust on the way out, this is not a human being with any emotional intelligence whatsoever, it's more or less AI. When this thing orders people to death for it's own ambition with no benefit to anyone but it, it does so with EXACTLY the same emotional content as we do when sending a stack of units comprised of pixels to their destruction when playing a game of Age of Empires, because they're just pixels and nothing more.

 

With NATO and everyone else held ransom by nuclear weapons there's no end in sight, otherwise they would have rolled in there and steamrolled that thing into submission, but they haven't, cause they can't.

[HeyYou]

The entire mess we are in its due to neocons....

 

That and the narcissistic psychopaths that for some unknown reason we allow into positions of leadership, which is unavoidable due to the drive of these kinds of humans that operate on a completely different wavelength than humans not afflicted with these particular personality traits.

 

Russia wont use a nuke......

 

No Russia won't, but the narcissistic psychopath in charge of that entire country will, not being smart but if you only have a 'glancing' understanding of those 2 traits then study them and realise.

 

Best analogy I can give is don't think for one moment that the spoilt little brat in the sandpit who finally exhausts all his 'units' and has to leave the sandpit, won't kick everybody's castles into dust on the way out, this is not a human being with any emotional intelligence whatsoever, it's more or less AI. When this thing orders people to death for it's own ambition with no benefit to anyone but it, it does so with EXACTLY the same emotional content as we do when sending a stack of units comprised of pixels to their destruction when playing a game of Age of Empires, because they're just pixels and nothing more.

 

With NATO and everyone else held ransom by nuclear weapons there's no end in sight, otherwise they would have rolled in there and steamrolled that thing into submission, but they haven't, cause they can't.

NATO could end the war in a few days. Unfortunately, that "End" would be everyone tossing nukes. When everyone is dead, there is no more war......

[ScytheBearer]

Maybe not 2023, but humanity will drive itself into near or actual extinction. Global warming, global thermal nuclear war, global famine, global thirst, theological divides, or just simple human stupidity ... pick one. Or pick any combination. Human beings are their own worst enemy and as a species we appear bent on suicide.

[7531Leonidas]

I think that the single most important change in the last 1000 years is the advent of social media on the internet. It fuels many of the worst behaviors of mankind, like mob behavior, bullying, and mass hysteria.

 

BTW, global warming is firmly in the mass hysteria fold. You do realize that almost all of the disastrous predictions come from computer models that are largely based on parameterizations (reasonable to WA guesses)? That the models are similarly selected from the ones with the warmest trends and worst possible outcomes, and that this is justified by the claim that these outcomes are "possible". Furthermore, claims about record temperatures, ice sheet/glacier melt, sea level rise, etc. are suspect because we simply do not have the length of measurements on more or less daily or instantaneous observations. I just LOVE how some claim that now is the hottest ever, when it is provable by proxy records that temperatures were higher in the past, but those proxy records 'smooth' the temperatures with respect to time, i.e. averaging over hundreds/thousands of years. Remember, by the very nature of averaging, there HAD to be periods of higher and lower temperatures during those time periods (most recently, the Minoan and Roman eras).

[HeyYou]

I think that the single most important change in the last 1000 years is the advent of social media on the internet. It fuels many of the worst behaviors of mankind, like mob behavior, bullying, and mass hysteria.

 

BTW, global warming is firmly in the mass hysteria fold. You do realize that almost all of the disastrous predictions come from computer models that are largely based on parameterizations (reasonable to WA guesses)? That the models are similarly selected from the ones with the warmest trends and worst possible outcomes, and that this is justified by the claim that these outcomes are "possible". Furthermore, claims about record temperatures, ice sheet/glacier melt, sea level rise, etc. are suspect because we simply do not have the length of measurements on more or less daily or instantaneous observations. I just LOVE how some claim that now is the hottest ever, when it is provable by proxy records that temperatures were higher in the past, but those proxy records 'smooth' the temperatures with respect to time, i.e. averaging over hundreds/thousands of years. Remember, by the very nature of averaging, there HAD to be periods of higher and lower temperatures during those time periods (most recently, the Minoan and Roman eras).

I don't need a scientist to tell me the climate is changing. I am north of 60 years old, and I have SEEN the changes. Yep, it is getting warmer, we are getting less snow here, and far fewer major winter storms. Used to be, we would have snow on the ground from end of september/beginning of novermber, almost thru april (and sometimes later.........) it was actually worthwhile owning a snowmobile. For the last decade, give or take, if we get three or four good riding DAYS, it's a surprise. Summer is getting hotter, though not in any kind of linear fashion. We have had summers with multiple weeks of 90+ temps, but not every summer..... What I haven't seen though, is more severe storms during the summer, if anything, it's quite the opposite. We haven't had a really good thunder/lightning show, or truly heavy rain, for quite a few years. Used to be, I would see several of those every summer...

 

Now, I am well aware that our climate goes thru various cycles, whether mankind is around or not... but, just from casual observation, I can see things ain't the same any more...... Humans likely are not the SOLE cause of climate change, however, I am quite sure that we have an effective on the RATE of change. We are speeding it up.

 

That said, even if we stopped producing ALL CO2 TODAY, the climate would STILL change. Just like it has for millions of years....

[7531Leonidas]

I, too am 60+. and I agree that it is getting warmer. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that this warming is a disaster in the making. As far as speeding up the rate of change, I don't think that we can tell. The warming has occurred in fits and starts, with multiple decades not showing any statistically significant warming, but the carbon dioxide has been more or less steadily increasing in concentration. A problem with the current meme is that the 'baseline' the climate change alarmists want to use is the 1600s, partly because humans developed thermometers around then, but that was also a period that saw disastrous cooling that caused crop failures and famine. A second common baseline is the 1960's, which again, just happened to be a period of cooling, which engendered predictions of a new ice age.

 

I think that we must realize that we as human beings, do not have the longevity and attention span to make such determinations, and that many of our scientific fields have become polluted with "scientists" who will do whatever they can to prove their point of view, instead of doing research that will uncover objective truths.

[gnarly1]

This is Nnot really related, but Xxrayy you REALLY need to use proper (redundant) punctuation. At least capitalize the first word of your sentences, (comma is redundant) and make sure to separate sentences with periods. Its It's (requires an apostrophe as 'it's' is a contraction of 'it is') hard to make sense out of what you're saying you've written (xrayy didn't say anything) when its it's not that (redundant) apparent where each clause begins and ends.

Overall a poor effort. Grade: C-

 

See me after class for some remedial homework exercises.

Edited August 9, 2023 by gnarly1

[gnarly1]

I think that the single most important change in the last 1000 years is the advent of social media on the internet. It fuels many of the worst behaviors of mankind, like mob behavior, bullying, and mass hysteria.

Wouldn't the most important change be the internet, not social media? Also, SM doesn't fuel anything - it is the enabling technology.

 

BTW, global warming is firmly in the mass hysteria fold. You do realize that almost all of the disastrous predictions come from computer models that are largely based on parameterizations (reasonable to WA guesses)? That the models are similarly selected from the ones with the warmest trends and worst possible outcomes, and that this is justified by the claim that these outcomes are "possible". Furthermore, claims about record temperatures, ice sheet/glacier melt, sea level rise, etc. are suspect because we simply do not have the length of measurements on more or less daily or instantaneous observations. I just LOVE how some claim that now is the hottest ever, when it is provable by proxy records that temperatures were higher in the past, but those proxy records 'smooth' the temperatures with respect to time, i.e. averaging over hundreds/thousands of years. Remember, by the very nature of averaging, there HAD to be periods of higher and lower temperatures during those time periods (most recently, the Minoan and Roman eras).

It's fairly ironic that you mention the problems caused by social media because in your comment above about GW you adroitly demonstrate how easy it is for people to promulgate BS via social media.

 

1. You write on a subject about which you have no domain expertise

2. You cite no sources or provide any evidence for your opinion - this helps you to be as vague as possible so your weak observations at least sound plausible

3. You justify your assertion that GW is mass hysteria by going for the low-hanging fruit of the climate models, as if the deficiencies of some of the models (usually the assumptions) is a slam-dunk reason to reject the entire subject

4. You didn't do a methodical assessment of a random selection of the models so it's highly probable that your opinion is nothing more than confirmation bias

5. Your narrow focus on the climate models means you ignore the vast reservoir of empirical data supporting GW. This is the selective attention fallacy - focus on only one part of an argument, poke a few holes in it, then act like you've just comprehensively demolished the entire thesis. Unfortunately it only serves to show that you are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending the complexity of the topic.

 

TL;DR: Stop using social media to spread FUD about a topic you know nothing about, especially after pointing out how SM enables the 'worst behaviours of mankind'.

[7531Leonidas]

Sorry that I touched a sore point, Gnarly. No, not the internet. It was just a connection between universities and research labs that was opened to the public. Social media, as we have it now, enables mob behavior on a grand scale, fueling (feeding) these behaviors.

 

What vast reservoir of empirical data? There are temperature records, the vast majority of which are located in urban areas, subject to UHI influences, said influences made worse by the change to digital thermometers that record temps that have much less persistence than the older LIG thermometers. These influences also affect the process of infilling the temperature maps for missing data that are most prevalent where fewer people live (which I believe to be suspect - since temps can vary widely even a few blocks away, much less between cities/weather stations). Also, the temperature records (such as they are) show it is the average temperature minima that are rising much more rapidly than the average temperature maxima.

 

I focused on the temperature models, since they are specifically cited when making the predictions of catastrophic climate change. Usually, these predictions rely on the extreme RCP 8.5 scenarios. It is the predictions of catastrophe that are driving the hysteria about the climate 'emergency', along with the scary intense reddening on the weather maps, when cooler colors used to be used for the same temperature ranges.

 

'Poke a few holes'? If the temperature records are suspect, and the models vary in their predictions from +0.5 C to +8.0 C, and the temperature changes are not more closely correlated to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, I believe that the catastrophic predictions are completely unfounded. Confirmation bias, sure I have it, but I am inundated with the arguments from the catastrophic warming side, pushed by journalists and pundits, and 'scientists' that act like they believe they are the saviors of mankind, in the same fashion as many of the COVID 'experts' once did, suppressing information they thought would spread doubt, even if it was citing their own information. Where do you go for your information about the skeptic side? To sites dedicated to 'poking holes' in their arguments, or do you go to the skeptic sites and do the analysis on their arguments that you suggested should have done, above?

 

I didn't cite any sources, firstly, because we were talking in generalities up to this point, secondly, there is not enough space/attention on this forum (re: your TL;DR), and thirdly, any sources I could cite would be automatically dismissed by the climate change faithful. I use Watts Up With That as the clearinghouse for most of my information, they cross-link to other sites, and they do host arguments from both sides, at least those who don't avoid the site because it is a 'denier' site. Go investigate those 'denier' sites, and see how some individuals and groups with extreme 'domain expertise' are/have been shouted down/cancelled by the true believers (ever heard of Judith Curry?).

 

Since these predictions of a climate 'catastrophe' are causing the leading edge of hysteria (one definition of FUD), I will comment as much as I feel I need to, to enhance an attitude of scientific skepticism (this is not FUD, no matter what true believers like to throw about), regardless of your feelings about my qualifications, thank you.