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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/4/2011 2:56:11 PM
From: Bearcatbob	10 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

So Jacob - you would solve it how? I submit to you that if it is happening - it is going to happen and trillions that would accomplish nothing could be far better spent for the betterment of mankind. Bob

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/4/2011 5:47:30 PM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	25 Recommendations Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 206085

Mmmm, an entire carton filled with cans of worms! The skeptic (or is it cynic?) in me sees scary graphs and cherry picked data. Let's look at these one by one. This graph is compiled from data at a Hawaiian observatory. Incidentally, anyone know just how much CO2 is put out by volcanoes???! I realize Mauna Loa is quite lofty, but they could have picked a better geographic location, say in Siberia, or the Arabian desert, the middle of the Pacific or central Africa, well away from any volcanoes (massive CO2 sources by the way). The graph looks nice and dramatic, with that big slope and all. It suggests that atmospheric CO2 has increased by roughly 75 ppm over the last 50 years. Did you read the data disclaimer on the website? Instead of using the end points of this miniscule 50 year dataset, try plotting a graph of 0-1,000 ppm. That is 0-0.1% in real terms. I'd like to know exactly what instruments have been doing the measuring. Were they the exact same sensors for all of those 55 years? If not, then error is introduced to the dataset right from the get-go. I understand the concept of CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" and its energy (heat?) trapping qualities. I also understand the relevance of ppm level increases having a real effect. it is the actual data collection and manipulation that I have a problem with. Here's a quote from a UCSD website on the subject: earthguide.ucsd.edu "long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time." There is a lot of good information on this UCSD website. No climate scientist scare-mongering for funding. Just balanced discussion. Well worth a browse through. ------------------------------------------------------ What a wierd and pointless graph. It is showing a -0.4C to +0.4C temperature departure from an arbitrary zero line, over just 130 years. Why start the graph at 1880? We know that we had a warm period in the Middle Ages and a cold period in the early 1800's. This graph would be a lot more meaningful if shown over 1000 years or more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We are talking an alleged 20cm increase over 120 years. Hardly the AlGore 20 feet in 20 years garbage, is it. Why not include the disclaimer that appears right below this graph in the link you provided? "Because of the limited geographic coverage of these records, it is not obvious whether the apparent decadal fluctuations represent true variations in global sea level or merely variations across regions that are not resolved. A recent paper suggests that many of the tide gauges used by Douglas show no rise in sea level when the data is updated to include data to 2010." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- More "fun with graphs". I notice that little +/- 2SD error shading on the upper curve. Place the same error shading on the lower curves and it is totally statistically sound to say that the curves do actually overlay one another in near-perfect correlation. The person making this graph uses his/her own statistical licence to place the various curves as far apart as possible, for dramatic (I mean more funding) effect. Regardless, once again the graph shows just 30 years of data. I want to see a graph over 1000 years to give the subject any real value. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL. I don't even know what to say about this one. The graph is showing just 8 years of data. EIGHT YEARS!!! Seriously?! Going to the source of this data, NASA's GRACE project, I found the following graphs which use the exact same data. Look at the top one, which graphs the same data as the above graph from the original post, but includes data from 1992-2003. The 2003-2010 period goes from approx -150 Gt/yr to -450 Gt/yr, or net -300 Gt/yr. The above graph goes from +800 Gt/yr to -800 Gt/yr, or net -1,600 Gt/yr It is an order of magnitude smaller using the same data!!!!!!!!! jpl.nasa.gov Call me crazy but I just cannot believe all this bunk. It is just fun with numbers and fun with statistics. Hype and hysteria, study and fund, fund and study. Amazing how much time one can spend on useless interweb "fact"finding while riding out a storm. LOL S&P

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/4/2011 6:23:59 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Recession Watch: 6 Signatures of recessions: 1. widening of credit spreads on corporate debt versus 6 months prior 2. S&P 500 below its level of 6 months prior 3. Treasury yield curve flatter than 2.5% (10-year minus 3-month) 4. year-over-year GDP growth below 2% 5. ISM Purchasing Managers Index below 54 6. year-over-year growth in total nonfarm payrolls below 1% .......as well as important corroborating indicators, such as plunging consumer confidence ...the evidence we observe at present has 100% sensitivity (these conditions have always been observed during or just prior to each U.S. recession) and 100% specificity (the only time we observe the full set of these conditions is during or just prior to U.S. recessions). Excerpts from: A Reprieve from Misguided Recklessness, John P. Hussman, August 29, 2011: hussmanfunds.com Valuation Review: As of last week, we estimate that the prospective 10-year total return for the S&P 500 is back down to about 5.1% annually. To put this expected return in perspective, the chart below reviews the prospective return estimates from our standard methodology, going back to just before the Great Depression. The chart also presents the actual subsequent 10-year total returns achieved by the S&P 500. Note that a 5.1% prospective return is certainly not the worst level we've observed in history, but it is far from the 7.5-13% range of prospective returns that has characterized the bulk of historical data (and of course nowhere near the 20% prospective returns that have marked "secular" market lows). The chart below provides a more comprehensive view of the prospective returns that would be associated with various levels of the S&P 500, based on the fundamentals we presently observe. As a rule-of-thumb, this curve shifts to the right at a rate of about 6% annually, which is the approximate growth rate of long-term normalized fundamentals (earnings, dividends, book values, revenues, and even nominal GDP). ...each time the Fed has attempted to "backstop" the financial markets by distorting the set of investment opportunities that are available, the Fed has bought a temporary reprieve only at the cost of amplifying the later fallout.... The way to get out of this is to abandon the misguided belief that economic prosperity can be obtained by encouraging speculation and distorting the set of investment opportunities. Rather, we will eventually find, as was eventually also discovered in the post-Depression stagnation of the 1930's, that the way to get the economy moving again is to restructure hopelessly burdensome debt obligations.... Over the past three years, Wall Street and the banking system have enjoyed enormous fiscal and monetary concessions on the self-serving assertion that the global financial system will "implode" if anyone who made a bad loan might actually experience a loss. Because reversing this mantra is so difficult, policy makers are likely to continue fitful efforts to "rescue" this debt for the sake of bondholders, through mechanisms that are increasingly distasteful to the broader population..... .......with near-zero interest rates, depressed long-term rates, and already massive bank reserves, the policy could not hope to relieve any constraints that were actually relevant to the economy (see The Recklessness of Quantitative Easing ); because consumers don't spend out of volatile forms of "wealth" (see Bubble, Crash, Bubble, Crash, Bubble... ); and because a monetary easing that creates inflation expectations while pressing down interest rates invariably leads to an "overshooting" depreciation in that currency and a surge in commodity prices that are quoted in that currency (see Why Quantitative Easing is Likely to Trigger a Collapse of the U.S. Dollar )

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/4/2011 7:08:40 PM
From: MIRU	7 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

JS, Some of us don't deny that the climate is changing or even deny that human activities are causing the change. What we deny is that there is any cost effective way to do anything about it.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/4/2011 7:37:26 PM
From: Sweet Ol	11 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

This is incredible. The AGW believers have crucified, drawn, quartered and fired and editor who dared publish a peer reviewed article critical of the GW models. Please read the link below, or go to Joseffy's post on the Global Warming - A Scam not a hoax board, Message 27615342. I had no idea they were so desperate to go to these lengths. I was pretty much an agnostic on AGW, but now there is no longer any doubt in my mind that it is a scam. Blessings, JRH From: joseffy Climate McCarthyism Strikes Again ....................................................................................................................... September 4, 2011 by Steven Hayward powerlineblog.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/5/2011 2:16:34 AM
From: whitepine	2 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

Yo Jacob, Our agreements were short-term in nature. Most of your graphs/views have been discredited by folks over in the thread: Politics of Energy.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (156455)	9/5/2011 2:42:54 PM
From: Umunhum	7 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

To get a better understanding of the Global Warming Fraud you have to follow the money and study its genesis: euro-med.dk The Global Warming Fraud, like the character Jason in one of the Friday the 13th movies, has received many death blows from reputable scientists but continues to lumber on. I guess enslaving most of the developed world with their ponzi banking system isn't enough for these parasites, they also want to tax us for breathing. Then they intend to take our money and loan it to the developing world to grab up resources and enslave them as well. This is pure evil under the guise of saving the planet from a non-existent problem. I don't understand how anyone who has the ability to read can read the climategate emails and believe any of this Fraud!