Why I Hate Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, and a Challenge to Global Warmists

When they're not pumping silver coins to gullible idiots for twice the spot price, posting misogynistic pictures (women are loose and give good head, look at their cats, do women even have faces?, look at their gold and silver,  "don't you just love her outfit?" and this one doesn't even have an outfit--this is but a small number of such images), and putting forth the ridiculous claim that JPMorgan Chase (JPM) will go bankrupt if the price of silver goes over JPM's stock price (oops, JPM made money even while silver went up), pseudo journalists and Russian and Iranian state employees Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert blame "AGW" for everything.

It's cold. "AGW!"
It's warm. "AGW!"
There's an average number of tornadoes. "AGW!"
There's fewer hurricanes. "AGW!"
It's snowing. "AGW!"
It's not snowing. "AGW!"
There's drought. "AGW!"
There's flooding. "AGW!"
There's a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. "AGW!"
The sky is blue. "AGW!"
It's dark at night. "AGW!"


What the hell is AGW?

Standing for Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW is a thought terminating cliche. It's a slogan. The more one shouts it, the more one believes it. It stops all debate. To call what's happening in the environment AGW not only says there's warming, but also that it's our fault.  It's a compact, three letter statement that doesn't give you a chance to think.

Has the debate been settled on either score?

I have no idea whether there is global warming, and, if there is global warming, whether human activity is the cause. I don't think you do either.

My problem is I don't know which source is trustworthy. When this scientist says that the earth is cooling, is he lying? Or how about this one, who says "The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680...so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend"? Or this guy from MIT, who says that the climate science isn't settled? Should I trust them, or are they funded by the Koch brothers? Or are they of the political persuasion that the fewer the regulations, the better? And if they are of that opinion, does it shape their scientific conclusions?

On the other side there are a number of scientists, led by the UN and East Anglia University, who say the opposite. They might be right, and they might be wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that if they, and other climate researchers, stop saying that there's global warming caused by humans, their funding will be cut. (Group think or herd mentality has always been around in science. That we can classify different movements and schools of thought is evidence enough. But as an example, recall all the eugenics theories of decades past when people's skulls were measured to determine their intelligence and moral worth--that was mainstream science.)

The UN has an interest in pushing global warming, because any carbon tax scheme will redistribute wealth from the richer nations to the poorer ones. And do scientists who instinctively favor more government regulation allow that opinion to interfere with their research? Newspapers of this pro-regulatory bent certainly report on these scientists' research more frequently and favorably than they do on skeptics.

They're not the only ones making a business of global warming, or climate change, or AGW, or whatever you want to call it. Al Gore and other passionate advocates for various carbon tax and cap and trade schemes (which are, incidentally, supported by the very companies blamed for carbon emissions) stand to make boatloads of money.

So I don't trust any of them. (And I find it a bit ironic that the last few global warming conferences have been held during record breaking cold spells. Do they have these conferences in the winter with the hope that it might be a warm day so they can say, "aha! see there's global warming!"?) The earth has been hot. It's been cold. There have been floods and droughts. All before humans made an appearance. That's all I know.

Getting back to Max and Stacy, it's almost as if their site and shows are designed to broadcast AGW propaganda: say something true about the world, like it's going to hell in a hand basket--duh, take advantage of people's justifiable anger toward the banks, and then, when the audience is nice and ready to hear what else Max and Stacy have to say, it's AGW, AGW, AGW. And before the audience can question anything, show them some demeaning pictures of women. Direct the blood flow from the brain. (I'm only half serious here.)

How can anyone trust these people?

So here's my challenge for everyone who blames global warming on carbon. (I haven't a clue, but I'll assume for argument's sake that there is global warming.)

Do you eat meat?

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO₂ from cars

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

And here's a graphic from the NY Times.

Read that again.

So, do you, global warming believer, eat meat? If you do, how do you justify it and still believe in global warming? (Unless you think global warming is good, which I guess can be an acceptable position.)

I'm a global warming agnostic, but I bet my "carbon footprint" (alert! another slogan) is lower than yours. My score is 6.3 on the test here (it's stupid, in my opinion, but everyone's yammering about reducing their carbon footprint). What's your score? Be honest!

Some links about Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a digital currency created in February 2009. It is based on peer-to-peer networking, and as a result it has no central authority or issuer, is anonymous, and is free of transaction and transfer fees. There is a fixed number of Bitcoins, with deflation built into the system. According to Wikipedia, "As the supply of more bitcoins runs out and the 'Bitcoin economy' grows, the value of a single bitcoin increases." Bitcoins are also practically impossible to counterfeit.

I like the idea. A lot. But we already know what banks, and therefore governments, will think of it, given user anonymity and lack of third party meddling. The chief problem that I see with Bitcoin is also one of its appeals: it is independent from government. As almost anything can be money, it's usually government enforcement, through a taxation system (e.g., "you can only use x to pay your taxes"), that gives the medium of exchange its legitimacy. Bitcoin lacks this and has the potential for the opposite--government hostility, which can result in criminalization, and so on.

Another problem is that Bitcoin is backed by demand only. There's nothing to stop a competing digital currency from becoming more popular. As demand shrinks, so does the purchasing power. Paper money (note that this is a small percentage of our money supply) has some worth even if it's defunct. As something physical, you can at least use it to wipe your butt, burn it for fuel, and so on. It can become a collectible. For example, "worthless" Zimbabwe trillion dollar notes are being sold on Ebay for a few US dollars each. Defunct coins can be melted down and the metal sold off or traded for whatever currently has purchasing power. Digital currency, on the other hand, simply vanishes.

There will be an all digital currency in the future. But it probably will not be Bitcoin. It'll be issued and controlled by whoever is in charge. All your transactions will be monitored and recorded. Anonymity will be eliminated and various transaction fees and taxes will be automatically applied. There will be all sorts of fraud, and life will be the same or worse.

But one can dream of a freer world:

1. Wikipedia article on Bitcoin
2. What Bitcoin is, and Why it Matters (Technology Review--an MIT publication)
3. Bitcoin, Digital Currency of the Future? (The Atlantic)
4. Why I'm Putting All My Savings Into Bitcoin (Falkvinge) 
5. Bitcoin.org
6. Bitcoin Wiki

Regarding the title of article 4, I wouldn't do that with any asset. It always pays to diversify.

Update: As expected, here's some grandstanding by a government official (my senator and Wall Street lackey) who doesn't know what he's talking about. There will be more, I'm sure. Money laundering? Really? If anything, it's a ponzi scheme.

Update 2: Maybe they'll continue going up in dollar value, but I say Bitcoins are finished. Today there's an article about them in SmartMoney. That article made it to the Yahoo! front page, where all the stupid news for the unwashed masses goes. I bet that marks the bursting of the bubble.

Update 3: While Bitcoins are themselves secure, Bitcoin holders are only as safe as their computers. Check out this article from PC World, World's First Virtual Heist? BitCoin User Loses $500,000.

Some of the richest people in the world are no longer using the dollar as their reference currency

From Barron's:

"The fundamental question remains the role of the dollar," says Prestowitz. In a worrying sign, he notes that, at a family wealth-manager meeting recently in Zurich, he learned that "some of the richest people in the world are no longer using the dollar as their reference currency." If that's the case, he says, then the role of the U.S. in the world is "dramatically reduced."

If they're not using the dollar as their reference currency, what are they using? Gold? Oil? The Renminbi?

Some Recent Headlines that Should've Gotten More Attention

Banks Taking Out Insurance on Your Life

Maybe you heard the old joke about life insurance. When you purchase life insurance, you say, "I bet I'll die." The insurance company says, "we bet you won't." You bet anyway and pray they're right.

Well, now the banks want to bet too. According to Bloomberg,

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), which bundled and sold billions of dollars of mortgage loans, now want to help investors bet on people’s deaths.

War

The National Defense Authorization Bill has a provision tucked away in it that authorizes, in the ACLU's words "a worldwide war." "Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists." One congressman complained (John Garamendi, a Democrat from California) and promised a debate on the House floor.

A search on Google News didn't reveal any mainstream articles about the bill. The war on terror is a metaphor, like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Unfortunately, we've made the metaphor literal via invasions of three countries and lots of money down the tubes. Wars against metaphors can never be won because there is no party, group, or country that can surrender. What this means is endless worldwide war.

Freedom of Speech

Bill Clinton wants to censor the internet. He thinks that the US government or the United Nations should create an internet agency that corrects misinformation and quashes rumors online. In effect, he wants a Department of Truth.

You should be worried if you believe in the so called "marketplace of ideas" theory of free speech rights first formulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919. The theory states that the competition of ideas, through open and free debate, is how people should formulate their opinions. The best idea, like the best product, will flourish, while the worst ideas will die. The question is, basically, should the government decide what is true for you, or should you be able to decide for yourself?

While Clinton will likely never hold public office again, what he says matters because he shares views with those who are in power. For example, Cass Sunstein, Obama's communications czar, proposed

that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. (From Salon.)

What's a false conspiracy? It could be anything. The government just has to deem it so. That the earth is round, that the planets orbit the sun and not the earth were once deemed false by those who were in power because it served their interests.

You think that this is farfetched and you're safe? The US already manipulates foreign social media. What about in the US? Here's an example. According to Google,

YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries.

 Just how many requests do they "occasionally" receive? No one knows, but the number of government requests for user data might give us an approximation. Have you ever come upon a video or article on the web that was blocked because "this content is not available in your country due to a government removal request"? We'll probably see this more and more, as people like Senator Lieberman want the government to be able to shut down the internet if it so chooses. For example, it has been claimed that people in the UK can't watch this video. (If you're in Britain, please confirm by emailing me or with a comment.)



Privacy

Indiana's supreme court recently overturned a common law dating back to the 1200s which recognized the right of the people to resist illegal entry by the police. A number of similar rulings in other courts, including the Supreme Court of the US, are very concerning.

Many people are of the view (in my opinion it's a mindless slogan used to cut off all thought and debate) that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." If you hold this view, I have a few questions for you.

Is it okay if I enter your house so I can watch you? May I watch you in the shower? May I set up cameras and other recording devices so I can see what you do during the day? May I shuffle through your documents and wardrobe? May I look at all your photographs? May I read your diary? May I read your email and listen in on your phone conversations?

Why wouldn't you want me to do any of these things? Is it because you're doing something wrong? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Right?

Followup to Does SLV Have Any Silver

I wrote a followup article to my SLV post. It's available on Seeking Alpha.

I asked the sponsor of ETF Securities' SIVR, a similar physically backed silver ETF, some questions about the custodian. These included how silver is stored, where it comes from, and what happens when shares are shorted.

I also asked refiners whether they manufactured the silver bars on the iShares and ETF Securities lists.