Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (239551)	2/26/2010 8:18:55 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

No CRU data lie has so far been revealed at all. CRU analysis in fact tends to be slightly lower than all the others. If CRU analysis is every revised, it will be upward, not downward. However, the difference between them and the others is not significant. The point I was attempting to make, and which you completely fail to grasp is that there is not a monotonic response in either system. Yet there is excellent theoretical and experimental support for both notions: 1) dumping vast quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temps over time, and 2) dumping vast quantities of printed money into an economy will cause inflation over time. There is also plenty of theoretical and experimental evidence that neither system responds monotonically. The idiotic thing is to assume there are no other effects at play during "short" time intervals (readily observed by looking at the signal content of any global temperature chart), and you need a functional brain to figure out what "short" is in each system. You also need to understand measurement resolution vs variance, so that when someone says "no significant increase" you understand that that does not mean "no increase" but rather means "given the noise in our measurements, the increase while appearing large still remains within the 5-95% margin of error." When you understand that, you will then understand how one more year (like 2010 will likely be) can suddenly change "no significant warming in 15 years" to "significant warming in 16 years". Its not that the last data point made a large difference, its that it shifted the result past the 95% tail of the distribution, and hence it became "significant". Magic! So in short, why is it that all the printing of money has not so far caused rampant inflation. I'm simply adopting your mode of simplistic reasoning regarding CO2 and global temps. Please note that grasping at housing inflation is trying to sidestep the question. The housing inflation happened prior to the money printing. I'm asking why we have not had rampant inflation since Ben started printing. You've claimed many times on this thread that printing money will lead to collapse. You did it right here: we believed the FED lie and now we are collapsing. You are more of an "alarmist" about this than Al Gore is about CO2. Yet your claims are so far not true at all. Is it just perhaps because you understand there are some time lags involved? If so, why do you understand that here, but not in atmospheric systems? Or perhaps, your views on economics are as incorrect as you think Al Gore's views on climate are? Which is it??