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: tom pope who wrote (180432)	9/10/2013 2:11:27 PM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	1 Recommendation Recommended By CommanderCricket Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206212

tom, for me it is a matter of perspective. We tend to over-estimate everything. It is human nature. You hit the nail on the head with, "The question is the relative effect, and how do you tease out the human contribution from all the other factors operating on climate." There is no question that building vast cities, felling forests for farm land, polluting the air, etc. all have an effect on the atmosphere. Nobody can deny that. What I deny is the TOTAL impact of all that activity on the rate of change in our climate, as well as the ability for our climate to revert itself back to the mean. Consider the alarmism generated over constantly changing entities such as our polar ice caps. The alarmists use a "yardstick" in terms of years and extrapolate to infinity. Pure self-serving BS! Twenty years ago, the alarmism du jour was a rapidly thinning ozone layer in our atmosphere. Scientists pointed to a "hole" over both the Arctic and Australia. The Earth's ozone layer was predicted to disappear in a few years and we would all fry in a cosmic microwave oven. Everyone was screaming ozone and articles galore were published in the literature by needy professors and government scientists. Again, the ozone layer is one piece in the vast puzzle that is Earth. Did the ban on aerosols have a direct effect? Maybe, but maybe not. You can still buy aerosols in Africa and the Middle East (and probably China). One thing is for sure. Nobody is talking loudly about the ozone layer any more. My last rant for a while on the climate religion. ...and now my segue back into stocks, which is why we are really here. First line above: We tend to over-estimate everything. It is human nature. I believe that both TSLA and Z are hugely over-estimated at this time. Both should be excellent shorts at these lofty "valuations". My apologies for the distraction. S&P

To: tom pope who wrote (180432)	9/11/2013 11:08:57 AM
From: Dennis Roth	5 Recommendations Recommended By Ben Smith Bruce L evestor saintsinnerido upanddown Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206212

Then you need to become a vegan who doesn't eat rice since rice cultivation is one of the most powerful anthropogenic sources of methane. Worse still is rice from South East Asia where they use methane producing ruminants (water buffalo) to cultivate their methane producing rice paddies. Most of the methane produced by ruminants is from eructation (burping) not flatulence. A meal of rice and beans could be very bad in terms of anthropogenic methane releases.