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.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1380)	7/31/2010 3:07:42 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

how does he explain the warming period in 1100 ad ? 1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1380)	7/31/2010 3:26:58 PM
From: J.B.C.	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Jeremy Grantham manages $107Bn through his GMO funds...not a climate scientist Once again, the dupe (YOU!) quotes a non-scientist as a global warming expert. BUT, of course anyone else that reads Monckton, oops that taboo according to you. There are so many holes in Grantham's article, it makes you wonder what carbon trading platform he stands to make money from.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1380)	7/31/2010 3:50:38 PM
From: J.B.C.	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

Well it only took a few more keystrokes, Jeremy Grantham is heavily invested in timber. Do you know when your being duped or are you that naive? Why forestry will benefit from green energy demand. Closer to home, there´s another reason why demand for wood will keep rising - the nation´s new obsession with green energy. The largest sustainable energy supply in the UK comes not from wind power, but from bio fuels. And one of the best bio fuels is wood, burnt as pellets or chips (wood is a renewable source of energy that creates little polluting waste) Edit by me...LOL EXCEPT CARBON DIOXIDE!. It is a fast-expanding sector: there are bio-energy projects that would use 3.6 million tonnes of wood fibre a year at "feasibility stage" and three of these have received planning permission, or are already under construction. The result? There is now a demand for low-quality timber in quantities that simply didn´t exist a few years ago. Biomass demand should entirely replace the demand lost to recycling, for example. All in all, says Angus MacDonald, "the macro issues look right" for timber prices and hence for investing in forestry. A rising timber price is of course a good thing for investors, but it´s not all there is to it. As Jeremy Grantham points out, if no one offers you a good price for your trees at harvesting time, you can leave them to grow on the stump and get more valuable until you can get the right price for them. So while timber prices may be volatile, the price of forestry land itself tends to hold its value: from 1992 to 2005 the FIM Timber index declined by more than 50%, but the Property Databank UK Forestry Index returned an annualised 3.7% over the same period. Over the last few years the price of forest plots has become slightly divorced from the price of timber in the UK, says Raymond Henderson. In some cases, prices have risen to levels that cannot be justified by the potential returns from timber sales. Valuing woodlands used to be easy: you looked at how much money you were going to make from growing and selling your timber, applied the appropriate discount rate (defined on page 40) and that was that - the result showed you what the woodland was worth. But today, people are paying more in the expectation of making large capital gains from the land itself, or just for the satisfaction of owning land. This is something that has already happened in the agricultural land sector and that shows no sign of coming to an end: as Henderson points out, you don´t spend £3,000 an acre on farmland in the UK in the expectation of making an appropriate return on it from growing barley. So why should woodland be any different?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1380)	8/2/2010 3:38:26 PM
From: The Vet	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes (2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. Of course NOBODY has actually proven this assertion. It is certainly NOT "just physics"... CO2 does absorb a small amount of infrared radiation in a very restricted bandwidth, but it also re-radiates that energy in all directions. The amount of energy radiated from the earth at the correct frequency to interact with CO2 is quite small, and even in laboratory conditions the effect is not proportional with CO2 concentration, and it is not a linear relationship with CO2 concentration in the air. In the atmosphere there are many other factors which mitigate or mask any "greenhouse effect" of CO2 most of which are not fully understood and which have NEVER been accurately measured. The whole carbon scam rests on this unproven "Point number 2" and it always amazes me who it can be rolled out as a "fact" or described as "just physics" without the slightest shred of evidence. PS. The "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with real greenhouses which maintain their higher internal temperatures by restricting losses due to convection and have nothing to do with CO2 or any other "greenhouse" gas. Even the name "greenhouse gas" is a fraud!

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1380)	8/6/2010 1:06:29 PM
From: zoo york	6 Recommendations Respond to of 4326

Hi Don! Krugman gets it dead wrong. The climate-gate scandal has NOT been exposed as a fraud concocted by the skeptics. The people involved in those leaked emails have not denied the emails were real, they just tried to minimize the importance of them. The emails were real and in my opinion, are utterly damning on the entire 'science' that so many of the uninformed fall back on. Also, I object to the rhetoric that is so much a part of this whole GW agenda. Krugman is no exception, in his own article, suggesting the planet is 'cooked'. Give me a break! For anyone that is NOT a complete idiot, just look up historical fact and note that the planet has experienced numerous episodes of higher temperatures in the past, and this part of the normal climate change that is well documented. One might also note that there is a growing body of evidence that similar climate patterns have been ongoing on the planet Mars. The GW agenda wants to pretend this variance in climate is not normal, and attempts to generate hysteria based on myth that is presented as science. I respect you Don for having the stones to debate this on a public forum where your opinion is in the minority. I disagree with your point of view but do not have any animosity towards you personally. cheers! mike