Phat Unplugged

Scientists are not selling fear. That is a ludicrous interpretation.
Your use of sources also is still lacking. The DailyMail is a bit sensationalistic. When you are reading about scientific topics, don't you think there may be better sources?
Here is an article on the subject from a more technical, but still readable, viewpoint.Earth Is About to Get Hit By a Major Geomagnetic Storm

quote:

---

According to NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, there’s a chance a G1, or minor, storm strikes Earth on Thursday, October 3, while a G3, or strong storm could hit the day after on Friday, October 4. Geomagnetic storms are caused by explosions on the Sun’s surface, such as solar flares, which can, in turn, send huge amounts of plasma shooting off into space, ultimately striking our planet’s atmosphere.

​

Exactly that kind of explosion occurred on Tuesday, when the second most powerful solar flare in the past few years erupted. The flare originated from an area of the Sun known for its numerous sunspots, called Active Region 3842, and, according to NOAA, was rated an X7.1. Flares are rated by their severity, with b-class flares being the weakest and x-class being the strongest. Each letter marks a 10-fold increase in power over the one lower on the scale, so an X7.1 is pretty damn powerful. In fact, it was the second most powerful of the current solar cycle.

​

Earlier, NOAA had warned that the flare may have led to an event called a coronal mass ejection, which is a massive expulsion of plasma and other solar particles, and that now appears to have been the case. Unlike sunlight, the solar matter doesn’t travel at the speed of light, and can take a few days to reach Earth. NOAA did not say the CME will definitely reach Earth, only saying that a geomagnetic storm is “likely” between October 3 and 5. The severity will be “dependent upon the orientation of the embedded magnetic field,” according to the alert.

​

While this can sound scary, the storm won’t have a direct effect on humans. The big risks are to sensitive electrical systems, such as power grids and satellites. NOAA said that threat should be “limited,” “minor,” and “mostly mitigatable.”

---

Scientists are not fearmongering. Sensationalistic media companies are.

Gold has a crappy 5000 year record. You still have not explained how a gold backed currency will work. As a matter of fact you have explained nothing. All you have is personal incredulity about fiat currencies. Fiat currencies existed 1200 years ago.
Gold has no more intrinsic value than the US Dollar. The faith and credit of the US government is more stable than a rock traded on an open market.As for gold as an investment vehicle? It only has value for those that live in fear. Returns on mineral investments are dwarfed by returns on stocks. The S&P index and Dow index have far outpaced gold and silver.
I will consider gold as an investment when it pays a dividend. When yadd dividends to ROI gold and silver returns are miniscule.
Facts is facts.
I get the psychological aspect. We have averaged 20% in our IRA's and my wife's 403 investments in the last year. I still throw extra at out mortgage, which is 3.75%. Investing is a much bigger return, but eliminating the mortgage has a psychological aspect.Stocks vs. Gold and Silver - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends

So your answer is word salad. You have no idea what you are even saying.

Still waiting to see how we would have gold back our currency. You complained that the government at one time controlled the price of gold. How do we have a market for gold if the value of the dollar is tied to gold that fluctuates in price? How is the value of gold determined if the US dollar is tied to it?
Will we all need a dollar to gold converter?
Have you thought this through? Do you even understand the questions?

Here is a perfect explanation why a gold backed currency is not just undoable, but stupid too.
No country can control the price of gold (or any other commodity). Therefore, the country would have no control over its currency or economy. If the country pegs their currency to an amount, that peg is subject to change at anytime by the central bank and state. Thus it would still be a fiat currency with the hassle of an artificial tie to gold.

quote:

---

Simply put, there is no way to back a reserve currency or a fractional reserve banking system with gold. It's easy to say that a world with very little credit would be a good world, but it would be a world with limited debt-based consumption, i.e., a world with little "growth." And without "growth," the system implodes.

---

The Problem With Gold-Backed CurrenciesABE
Please ask for clarification on the parts you don't understand.