Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
To echo comments that others have made, it seems to me that momentum plays would be the only way to capture gains from global warming. The global warming industry that doesn't yet exist is too young to pick winners. There's no way to figure out which companies are going to succeeed over the long haul as value plays.
I'm not a momentum investor, but even if I were one I would still feel like it's too early... there's not enough demand to feed momentum yet.
I think it's the other way around. The global warming zealots are wildly waving their fragments of unsubstaniated "science" while screaming at the people that would like to apply real science to the subject.
__________________ The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
I think it's the other way around. The global warming zealots are wildly waving their fragments of unsubstaniated "science" while screaming at the people that would like to apply real science to the subject.
Unsubstantiated? Amongst others, the UNs panel of scientists have come out to say it is real, the EUs panel has come out to say it is real and the UK government's panel says it is real.
What do you think is most likely - that 99% of the worlds climate scientists are engaged in a massive and secret conspiracy to impose socialism on us by stealth, or that the 1% of scientists sponsored by Exxon and friends are deliberately muddying the waters?
Anyone can disagree with the science, but if we're not going to listen to the experts in this field then who do you suggest we listen to - one or two scientists who disagree?
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 14,404
Re: Global warming and financial positioning
Hello! EU= a political body. UN = a political body. Why do their "findings" on the causes of global warming have any particular credibility? Would we be interested in what the MIT Environmental Physics Dept had to say about sub-Saharan monetary policies?
I agree that virtually all scientists who've looked hard at the issue agree that the earth is getting warmer. I don't know that there's agreement as to the cause--and we need to be d**n sure of what this thing is about before we kill people trying to fix it. Yes--taking actions that result in decreased energy output or other inefficiencies will lower standards of living, and some people will die as a result. So, let's get it as right as we can from the start. Moderate steps would be a good thing until we figure out what is going on.
Where the political bodies come in is in working to craft a solution. They've not succeeded to date--Kyoto was a non-starter.
What do you think is most likely - that 99% of the worlds climate scientists are engaged in a massive and secret conspiracy to impose socialism on us by stealth ?
Yes, but those scientists are those creepy smart guys. Guys like Al Gore, who tend
to talk like fags. I mean, seriously, would you want to go out and have a beer with
THOSE guys ?!?
The attached cartoon puts it into perspective
...
(Sorry the thing is so hard to read; forum has 64K restriction on attachment
size and that's the best I could do).
I guess I'm in a weird position in this debate. I believe humans are causing climate change, but I don't necessarily think we should do anything about it.
So, here's a question for the "do something" side. What if we turned off all carbon-burning today, and the models told us we'd still have to live with warming effects for the next 100 years?
Would you still want to shut-down all the carbon-burners (with all of the very serious lifestyle ramifications that would involve)? Or should we just try to adapt to the climate changes as they occur?
I'm in a weird position in this debate too. I do think that global warming is largely caused by our actions, and I think we should make changes now to stop it. But I also agree with the hurricane expert that Al Gore's movie was gross alarmism. Even if we take no action to stop global warming, it's not going to have a significant effect on me in my lifetime. Al Gore's movie tried to make people scared that they themselves would soon get ravaged by hurricanes, or flooded out of their homes. There's nothing in the science that would support such early consequences.
My concern around global warming is that we're shifting the problems onto future generations to clean up, and I don't think that's fair to them. Of course in the current "spend now pay later" environment, I realize I'm in the minority.
I keep waiting for the "science" but all I see are bits of random data that refuses to include contradictory data. Claims are put forth that are pure hypothesis. I don't think the whole subject has risen to the level of "theory" yet but it's talked about like an established law of nature. Science is no longer the issue. It's a media circus and political correctness tsunami.
Question for you 2B: How many original scientific papers in peer reviewed journals have you read on global warning?
I heard on a radio program that Mars' global temperature is increasing at approx. the same rate as Earth's gobal temperature, yet Mars obviously has no humans. Therefore, some scientists suggest that the global warming may have to do with the sun rather than human pollution.
I am just curious what the scientists who theorize that humans are the cause of global warming have to say about the fact that Mar's global temperature is also rising. Being that we are in the same solar system as Mars and that Mars and Earth are relatively close to one another it seems irresponsible to ignore this information?...
Also, I have heard that carbon emmissions from earth's natural volcanic activity throughout history is far greater than the total emmissions that humans have ever created. I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, but these arguments certainly make me think twice about whether human activity can be blamed 100% for the problem.
I do think the media has spent a lot of time on the human relationship to global warming and almost no time on other scientist's theories. My guess is that if we all got to hear both sides of the story, we wouldn't be feeling the "panic" that certain people like Al Gore are trying to instill in us and in our children.
Call me crazy, but I don't understand the concept of buying carbon credits. I mean, once you emit the carbon gasses, how can you take away what you've done by buying a credit?
The "science" in support of global warming is scary junk science. Everything is based on computer models of the future. The problem with that is that these models cannot be validated - they cannot start with a set of conditions and replicate history. A model that cannot do that is not a model, but contains only wishful thinking.
The biggest greenhouse gas is - no, not CO2 and not even close - it is water vapor. And you know, these global warming models cannot model it. The sun's variable output - the models don't have the information to consider it. Cosmic rays - not included. Heck, I can put together a model with the same rigor that the believers have done - especially when I don't have valid it - to show we are 10 years from the next ice age.
I agree with 2B - the world's communists/socialists want to take us back to the medieval times - they don't like progress, technology and individual freedom - that is what this global warming nonsense is all about. It is about people who hear propaganda and believe it without thinking for themselves.
Global warming believers are just as bad the medieval catholics in Europe - any deviation from their doctrine is heresy and must be viciously stamped out even when the true science is on the side of the skeptics. Even if you believe, it is a ***theory*** meaning no scientist is even now willing to formal declare it a ***law*** meaning 100% factually proven. Yet these same ??scientists?? say the debate is over. This not how science works - really science is open to ideas that are different with goal to find the truth. Global warming believers don't want to find the truth - they already have their answer and man is the center of the universe and bad.
And what about global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto - all unrelated according to the believers. Yet common sense points to the sun's output - nothing to do with man. Small changes in the sun's output can easily explain the current temporary warming, just like it can explain the temporary cooling period of 30 years ago, when the same scientists said the debate is over and in 10 years the earth's cooling will be irreversible.
Looking at the earth's history is a study of long ice ages followed by short breaks of warming. Man has thrived when the climate is warmer and struggled with the climate is cooler. Compare the medieval warm period and man's situation with that of the dark ages - and you want the climate cooler? The sad thing is we are at the end of the normal warm period between ice ages - which means the temperature would be predicated to the warmest and is going to start back down anyway. If man is powerful enough to put off the next ice age, we should be encouraging it. Six billion people cannot survive on a global that is 40% ice.
Since 1900, certain kinds of scientists have claimed alternating views of global cooling and global warming - all man's fault 5 different times - this is just the latest. This whole thing is a hoax by the scientists taking billions of dollars researching a non-issue - the believing scientists are the ones with the conflict of interest, selling out to take taxpayer money to make a political point. After we get taxed into oblivion by these idiots and the sun's output drops slightly and we enter a cooling spell - then what are they going to say? That they were too successful and we need to burn more CO2? Global warming is fake science of the worst kind.
The sheep of the world may be fooled by these believers and their propaganda, but what happens in 30 years when the believers are shown to be charlatan's? How do I get my life and money back from these liars?
Question for you 2B:  How many original scientific papers in peer reviewed journals have you read on global warning?
None.  How many have you read?
I have been watching to internet literature looking at various articles from reasonable sites.  I've seen several with interesting exchanges questioning some of the claims.  There was one a few weeks ago where "reputable scientists" declared that the glaciers of the Indian Himalayas (sp?) were receding at an "alarming rate."  Several Indian scientists charged with monitoring the glaciers responded that there have been no measurable changes in the last 20 years (the duration of their assignments).  There was an article about the tremendous reduction in glaciers in a part of Greenland which was responded to with an article about the growth of glaciers in another part of Greenland with an analysis that total glacier coverage is essentially unchanged.
I have not seen overwhelming evidence of climate change but I wouldn't be surprised if it is happening.  In the 1000's Greenland was much warmer than it is today.  Norse settlers established a colony that flourished for 300 years until climate change reduced the growing season to an untenable duration.  England used to have vinyards north of Essex (reference the Doomsday Book circa 1100).  They have all disappeared due to the cooling that occurred beginning about 1300.  At the same time there were flourishing settlements in Texas and New Mexico that collapsed due to lack of rain (Anastazi and various cliff dwellings).  I could go on but human induced climate change has become a religion to othewise atheist populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs
I am just curious what the scientists who theorize that humans are the cause of global warming have to say about the fact that Mar's global temperature is also rising. 
There's an old joke -- If two women are alone in the woods and something goes wrong, whose fault is it?  The answer is "some man's," of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs
Call me crazy, but I don't understand the concept of buying carbon credits.  I mean, once you emit the carbon gasses, how can you take away what you've done by buying a credit? 
You don't understand.  Carbon credits can be taxed to support world socialism.  If the wackos were serious, China and India would be included.
Wait a minute! I can get all sorts of "peer reviewed" scientific journal articles that clearly demonstrate that the Negroid and Asiatic races are inferior to the pure Nordic Anglos. It was accepted science in the early 1900's. We resolved the question. It was called WWII.
__________________ The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B - I like the way you think! I've come to learn that you can't trust anything you see on the news and read in the papers these days. Best to do your own research! Too bad others are so gullible! The problem is, we are outnumbered....and inevitably, the USA will make changes based on false science. There will be those who will find a way to financially take advantage of other's stupidity.
Question for you 2B: How many original scientific papers in peer reviewed journals have you read on global warning?
MB
Actually, I was wondering the same thing about all the posters on this board. I have a PhD in engineering and am the editor-in-chief of a peer reviewed publication. I have published over 200 articles in peer reviewed publications and conference precedings. Yet I have never read a single manuscript about global warming in a single peer reviewed journal. I don't even know the names of the journals (other than Nature) where these scientists might publish. And I am not familiar with any of the conferences they attend.
Reading this thread reminds me of those Holiday Inn Express commercials: "No, I have no formal training or advnaced degrees in environmental studies. I have not spent decades of my life studying environmental science. I have not collected or reviewed any data. I've never written (or even read) a peer reviewed article on the subject. . . But I stayed last night in a Holiday Inn Express and I'm not sure I think the scientists have it right."
Scientists in any field will never agree on everything, and they may turn out to be wrong even about some of those things they have reached consensus on. It does not advance science, however, to simply indicate you think someone is wrong. Science is advanced when someone specifies exactly what hypothesis is incorrect or inadequate by providing a hypothesis that provides improved prediction capability. Some of our posters have indicated that they think scientists have failed to prove that warming is due to human activity. Okay. What statement in what publication are they referring to? Which scientist in which publication stated that human activity was to blame? (or did you just hear some talking head on FOX say that?) Did the scientist claim that humans were entirely to blame? mostly to blame? partially to blame? 37% to 43% to blame? or that humans were stupid and deserved to die? What data or analysis did they use to come to that conclusion? If the conclusions of the manuscript are wrong, then either their data or analysis must be wrong? What analysis do you offer that corrects their error? What happens when you apply your new theory?
I would be surprised if very many of the posters on this board could answer many of these questions. Most of us couldn't carry on an in-depth, meaningful conversation with experts in any field of study.
I am sure of one thing. We've totally hijacked any "financial positioning" discussion originally intended with this thread.
__________________ The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
None I do not read the peer reviewed literature in that area (I have a hard enough time keeping up in my own field) and that is why in a different thread I made the comment that I have to base my position on the opinion of the "majority opinion" of climate scientists and that seems to be that man is effecting global climate.
In my own tiny piece of the technology world I can hold my own with pretty much anyone and I don't think that I have ever seen a completely accurate news article in my specialty in the popular media. Jounalists in general just don't seem to get hard science and it seems that they usually have a bias one way or the other so I tend to discount the lay literature.
I agree that there have been both warmer and colder periods in recent geological history and it is difficult to deconvolute all of the relevant variables. As a Ch E I'm sure that you understand the complexities of the system.
I personally doubt that anyone had demonstrated that CO2 emissions are the primary source of global warming to say a 95% (19/20 chance) confidence limit. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing anything about it. There is only a 1/6 chance that you will die in a game of Russion roulette but that doesn't mean that you want to play the game. The consequences which of course are all uncertain are just to great.
I personally think that we should put a significant gas tax in place even though as a Ch E it may hurt my own employment opportunities. It will also reduce dependence on foreign oil. Europe has a similar standard of living as the US and only uses about half as much energy per capita. There is no reason that we can't do it also. Will this happen? Probably not in the US we all of the right to life, liberty and cheap gasoline for our SUVs.
The US and China are the two biggest CO2 producers/energy users. Projections also show that the US and China are two countries that will probably NOT be greatly negatively affected by global warming. China may benefit. So you know that they are not going to want to limit their CO2 emissions.
Most of us couldn't carry on an in-depth, meaningful conversation with experts in any field of study.
And what would qualify somebody to be an expert "climate scientist?" I'm certainly no climate scientist, but I understand complexity (and was exposed to fun stuff like fluid dynamics) well enough to understand that there can be no such thing as climate science in something as complex as earth's ecosystem. At best, it's an art like medicine.
JABBERWOCKY!
There is this hugh universal influence on the earth and other planets in our solar system. It's called the sun. The earth is extremely resilient and has been hamdling these fluctuations of radiation from this ball of "FIRE" for eons, and will continue to do so.
However that being the case, there will be those who profit from this diatribe.
Quote:
Linear Mode
