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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10149)	10/28/2000 9:08:46 AM
From: Voltaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Hey Jackass, you are misinterpreting Barrett. That statement is old. When he made his deprecating remarks about INTC making a mistake with RMBS it was taken out of context. He was saying they made a mistake with RMBS ON THE TINMA CHIP DUE TO THE THEN HIGH COST ON A LOW END CHIP. What you are reading is his rectification of the statement. Remember what I told you at dinner about your LEFT BRAIN DEDUCTIONS, be careful or on occasion they will mislead you. LOL, V

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10149)	10/28/2000 10:17:07 AM
From: im a survivor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

<<RMBS was weak>> It's been weak for quite some time. For the life of me I just cannot see how and why Volty thinks rmbs will be at $200 by year end....hell, to be honest, I think $100 is stretching it quite a bit. I respect his opinion, and of course hope he is correct since I am a hurting rmbs long who bought much, much, much higher......but I just am having a hard time having any faith that she turns around and does something to the upside in the hear term.....hope I am wrong...... Keith

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10149)	10/28/2000 10:17:16 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Atlanta haze..........Sigh Ya Nada Baby........ Future Looks Hot U.N. Panel Says Warming Is Worse Than Previously Believed By H. Josef Hebert The Associated Press W A S H I N G T O N, Oct. 26 — New evidence shows man-made pollution has “contributed substantially” to global warming and the earth is likely to get a lot hotter than previously predicted, a United Nations-sponsored panel of hundreds of scientists finds. The conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative scientific voice on the issue, is expected to widely influence climate debate over the next decade. The report’s summary, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, was being distributed to government officials worldwide this week. It is the first full-scale review and update of the state of climate science since 1995 when the same panel concluded there is “a discernible human influence” on the earth’s climate because of the so-called “greenhouse” effect caused by the buildup of heat-trapping chemicals in the atmosphere. Panel Revises Assessment The panel says in its new assessment that now “there is stronger evidence” of the human influence on climate and that it is likely that manmade greenhouse gases already “have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years.” And the scientists, in revised estimates, conclude that if greenhouse emissions are not curtailed the earth’s average surface temperatures could be expected to increase from 2.7 to nearly 11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 6 Celsius) by the end of this century, substantially more than estimated in its report five years ago. It attributes the increase — from a range 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3.5 Celsius) warmer in the 1995 assessment — mainly to a reduced influence now expected to be played by sulfate releases from industry and power plants. Such releases, which tend to have a cooling influence, will likely dramatically decline in industrial countries because of other environmental concerns, the scientists maintain. “What this report is clearly saying is that global warming is a real problem and it is with us and we are going to have to take this into account in our future planning,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “It definitely reinforces what we were able to say in 1995,” added Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the center in Boulder, Colorado. “It shows the previous projections (in 1990 and 1995) were conservative.” Wigley, who did not participate in crafting the latest findings, was a key author of the 1995 report’s section about the human impact on climate. Others were less certain. Some Scientists Still Skeptical Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana said despite the new information there is still insufficient knowledge about natural climate variables such as solar radiation that could change the assessment. Comparing studies of climate to listening to noise radio transmissions, Schlesinger said in an interview, “Science has moved closer to the radio transmitter, so the signal is higher and more apparent against the background noise. But the background noise has not diminished. There are still uncertainties and there may be very large surprises ahead.” The IPCC’s third assessment report is expected to get final approval at a United Nations conference early next year. While some wording will certainly be changed by government policy-makers, the central scientific conclusions may not be altered, several scientists who have been involved in the process said Wednesday. Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric physicist at Environmental Defense, said the latest assessment “reinforces the mainstream scientific consensus” about global warming. Its new estimates of warming poses “a risk of devastating consequences within this century.” Major Polluters Ignore Kyoto Accord Three years ago industrial nations tentatively agreed to curtail the release of greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — to below 1990 levels as a first step to address global warming. But none of the major industrial countries has yet ratified the agreement, crafted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Skeptics argue that the science has yet to be conclusive and that computer models used to predict future climate is not reliable enough to warrant a dramatic, and possibly very expensive, shift in energy use to curtail carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The issue also has crept into the presidential campaign. Vice President Al Gore has argued the science is clear and steps need to be taken soon to begin reducing greenhouse emissions. His Republican rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, has not dismissed global warming, but urges a cautious approach and believes the science still needs to be proven. The IPCC panel’s summary of a voluminous technical report covering 14 chapters attempts to provide the most current state of scientific understanding of the climate system and potential for future warming. While there are still uncertainties, the IPCC scientists say that there is an “increasing body of observations” that provide a “collective picture of a warming world” that cannot be solely explained by natural forces. “Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that affect the climate system,” the report says. Various findings of the last five years have reinforced the IPPC’s 1995 determination that climate change warrants top-level attention by government policy makers.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10149)	10/28/2000 2:06:04 PM
From: dwayanu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

with Dow up 200, next should be a Naz move. I personally expect at least two days in the next couple weeks where the Naz jumps more than 125 points. JW, as I recall you mentioning a couple of weeks ago, where's the catalyst to get the Naz out of this downtrend? What's going to reverse the rotation of cash from techs to DOW? We need a proven bottom on the Naz, and obviously havn't seen one yet. Ummm, Intel/Msft good earnings weren't enough to get us out of this downtrend for more than a day, and yesterday after JDSU earnings was a poor excuse for a rally, and Cisco lost value... Minimal Naz panic selling, no broad capitulation in sight, buying on the dip still alive, but post-dip rallies getting weaker each of last three weeks... Good companies with high P/E's and good earnings still getting whacked without good reason (Sun, Siebel, Ariba, EXTR, NT, etc)... Oct '98 and March/April '00 both saw the DOW bottom and head sharply north a few weeks before the Naz really tanked. DOW 9650 10 days ago, then headed sharply north... Cisco earnings and the election are the lone remaining psychological points near term. Cisco reports Monday 11/6 night and election is Tuesday 11/7... Everyone yearns for a capitulation, says we can't bottom until it happens, but it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen... Disillusionment and disgust with tech stocks still growing... Therefore.... Looks like we're being set up for a Naz erosion this coming week to get us used to living in the 3000-3150 range, followed by an induced panic Friday-->Cisco Monday. Intraday bottom Monday 11/6 2650-2750. If so, there should be a modest non-institutional rally this Monday, probably tailing off into the afternoon, maybe a spike up early Tuesday before spending the rest of the day sliding down, another run(s) at 3000 Wednesday/Thursday to suck in the last of the buy-on-the-dippers, and a miserable rally failure on Thursday/Friday closing about 3000 or a few points under, setting up for Cisco Monday. Look for this weekend's endorsements of optical sector to have only a weak effect on those stocks, note NT closed at 42 1/2 Friday and Cisco at 50 1/2, and those are a lot more classy than my current EXTR and SCMR <g>. Recall very sharp morning-after selloff after Intel earnings. Look for everyone to start assuming that Cisco will sell off after earnings. DOW should nose over and start coming gently down late Tuesday or Wednesday. MSFT and INTC should hold their values right up to the end. Sigh..... Just a fever-dream. - Dway