Global warming. Betting against it.

[Skol]

Personally I'm sick of reading about it and all the new buzzwords (food miles)that go with it. I haven't seen one scrap of evidence to suggest it isn't a natural phenomenon if its happening at all. The loony Green Party in NZ even wants airlines to plant forests to make up for all the Jet A1 they burn.Being a contrarian, I've got a book here called 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds', (1841) which features such manias as the Mississipi Scheme, the Crusades, the Alchymists, the Magnetisers, etc. Is Global Warming the next chapter? If it is, it could be worthwhile thinking about betting against it and investing in companies that are out of fashion because of this obsession, such as coal miners etc. as this mania fizzles out and people find other things to worry about. I would welcome suggestions.

[Halebop]

I think temperatures have risen. Why they have risen may be unclear but even if "natural" I can't see billions of humans farting and driving cars as a benign influence. Natural or not I suspect an ice age would be the eventual outcome and I can't see that being particularly good for global commerce and acturial life insurance tables although maybe specifically good for say natural fibre mitten manufacturers.

On the question of Coal Miners with the likes of GCL near highs and the RIO's of the world raking in billions it would be a brave call to nominate coal miners as "out of fashion". The real kicker for coal mining would be improvements in scrubbing technology. While you might not think global warming is man made or augmented by man (which seems to divorce man from his environment?), a desire for less rather than more emissions is de jour. Countries like NZ have plenty of coal but no desire to use it. We argue about importing gas versus finding it locally versus RMA and building dams versus Nuclear versus Wind but coal seems discounted out of hand. Coal presents a partial solution that provides consistency of supply and protects sovereignty without the moral question of Nuclear (and what to do with the waste), without the variable patterns of wind generation, without flooding the landscape and burying history, without relying upon foreign shipping, infrastructure and large scale financing for gas / petroleum.

[marcer]

Skol - do a little research to investigate the last 700000 years of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the average global temperatures over those 700000 years.

You'll find there is an approximate 100000 year cycle called (I think) the Milencovich (or similar) cycle named after the guy who figured out that the earths orbit around the sun changes (at times closer and at times further away from the sun) over a 100000 year cycle which in turn leads to less or more solar radiation affecting the earth, which in turn leads to ice ages and interglacial periods.

You'll also find that there is quite a correlation between the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the average global temperatures during that 700000 years.

After you've checked all that out, check out the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past 100 years. They are WELL AND TRULY above anything calculated over the previous 700000 years. Even if you don't believe humans are causing it (I am inclined to think that we are at least a large contributing factor) you've got at least acknowledge that the general trend is up.

Using trends as part of my share trading methodology - I know if there was Globalwarming.com to invest in, I reckon I'd be going long.

[Skol]

CO2 levels can be caused by a host of natural phenomena, volcanoes for example.
The global warming concept has reached mania levels when people want to buy a Toyota Prius for exorbitant sums of money when a cold hard analysis by the Wall St Journal shows clearly it's not worth it. (feel good value only, lead batteries which may only last 2 years, weight of vehicle increases fuel burn when it's running on petrol etc.etc.)
Papers are full of it and now some of global warmings strongest proponents are suddenly quiet in this part of the world because some idiot has invented the buzzword "food miles".
Some of the recent manias include demonstrations against atomic weapons (still there but protestors obsessed with global warming), apartheid, (never mind 70 million people murdered in China as protestors aligned themselves with such erstwhile human rights advocates as the Mongrel Mob and now nowhere to be seen as whites are stripped of their proerties in Zimbabwe), Omega (demonstrators thought nuke subs used it but they use Inertial Navigation) etc. etc.etc. Plenty more examples if you need them.
Only a matter of time until it all goes away and the herd instinct takes over elsewhere.

[BehemothEagle]

U-stocks perhaps benefits from this issue.

[OneUp]

Skol, you can't be looking very hard for that evidence.

Go see "An Inconvenient Truth" (by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore) at any multiplex.

[Brian Higgins]

SKOL, i do believe you are being very ignorant about the situation. Blind freddy can see that things have and are changing. Please do not be foolish to suggest that natural phenonema is causing it.

I am not even close to being a greenie. I drive a v8 Mustang (hard) and leave all the lights on most of the time.

It is certainly time to change our ways. Although I wont be rushing out to buy the Prius I have started making changes in my every days ways including buying my electricity from green sources where possible amongst other things.

[Arthur]

Smoking doesn't increase cancer risk, there are no homosexuals in the Republican party, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

[Skol]

Well, getting back to investment, I think the first thing is to avoid companies that come up with technology like CNG or LPG conversions for cars. Thousands of gullible punters converted to CNG/LPG in the 70's at great expense only to find the price of oil drop to $10/barrel. CNG/LPG outlets disappeared and they couldn't give their cars away.
I can remember clearly in 1974 the boffins and academics saying the world will be out of oil by 2005.
For those of you wanting to believe the boffins & theorists perhaps you might like to read a book called 'Theory K: The Key to Excellence in NZ Management.' by Auckland University's Advanced Management Programme. Produced in 1986 it extolled the virtues of companies like Equiticorp, Chase, Smith City Markets and others that susequently disappeared in the 1987 crash.

[Skol]

quote:Originally posted by Arthur

Smoking doesn't increase cancer risk, there are no homosexuals in the Republican party, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

"a chain of logical argumentation is totally incomprehensible to crowds, and for this reason it is permissible to say that they do not reason or that they reason falsely and are not to be influenced by reasoning"

Gustave Le Bon
"The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind" (1896)

[absolut-advance]

The Nonsense That Is Global Warming

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week, some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured, but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide. And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.

We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines.

The Misleading Picture
The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes.

Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was, apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario of Greenhouse gases.
Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstate in any lab how CO2 could rise or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be harmful.

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Our question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from th

[Skol]

And global warming taxes are a damned good way for governments to empty your pockets, assuage your conscience, and give the money to someone who has no intention of working for a living.

[Skol]

While not wanting to dominate this thread, herd behaviour in humans, of which I am keen observer certainly is an interesting phenomenon.
I remember about 10 years ago there was a drought in this area and quite a big one. My neighbour assured me this was the way it was going to be now and for ever more. Thousands of others agreed and tank manufacturers although producing water tanks at an ever prodigious rate actually ran out. Many of these tanks were placed on balconys and decks and connected to the roof water-not long later the drought broke and the weight of the water in the tanks smashed through the decks.

[OneUp]

Skol,

did you go and see the movie I recommended, An Inconvenient Truth?

If you try hard to keep an open mind it may convince you there is a real problem, and it's not a conspiracy by theorists and academics.

Some greenies have theorised various calamotous events in the past. But they did not enjoy support from the vast majority of scientists. Global warming does, because of the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that the planet is getting warmer.

There are powerful vested interests opposed to any action on greenhouse gas emissions. If an article's not published in a reputable peer reviewed academic journal, then it's very suspect. Keep in mind much of the evidence of global warming, and it is overwhelming, has been subject to rigorous scrutiny and published in such journals. Global warming is not disputed. What's disputed is the cause (i.e. natural fluctuation or man made. Afterall, the climate has been in constant flux over the past five billion years). But if you look back over the past many millions of years, the current CO2 levels are so stratosphericaly higher IMO it can't logically be due to anything else.

We keep our collective heads in the sand, or we can do something about it.

The effect is likely to be greater on Europe and North America. I'm not aware of the likely effect on NZ and Oz?

[Brian Higgins]

In any case - from an investment viewpoint, if the general believe it is happening then the government will be required to act in order to protect their government position.

As this issue is starting to dominate news, newspaper articles etc etc it will become a very big issue leading up to the next election.

As such, both goverments will be looking to throw big dollars at the issue.

I believe clean coal power is where the government will want to lead this in order to ensure they are seen to be doing the right thing whilst also protecting one of our biggest assets - our coal resources for electricity generation.

Did a GOOGLE on Clean Coal Power - came up with a few companies including a little company called Carnegie (CNM) whom have purchased new technology.

These type of companies will benefit if they can commercialise something within a realistic timeframe.

[Beefheart]

Have a look at Scantech - ASX code SCD - they make on belt analysers to help optimize efficiency in, amongst other areas, coal fired power plants.

By the way One-up, I recall that there are several websites that debunk the Al Gore movie quite comprehensively. Don't have the url's to hand but a quick search should find plenty - or find links via http://www.pc.blogspot.com/

Regards
BH

[Skol]

I haven'seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I perceive Al Gore as the leader of the global warming pack. Leaders often tell lies, (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) and despite his other shortcomings Adolf Hitler was a master of crowd psychology and herd behaviour.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the masses, with their primitive minds, were more inclined to fall prey to a "big lie" than a "small lie", because it was quite common for people to lie on a small scale, whereas the average person would shy away from big lies. Therefore the crowd would never even contemplate that that anyone might be reckless or bold enough to twist the truth to an extreme degree.
I suppose we might be able to profit from jumping aboard this mania and make some money out of it as long as we get off the train in time before Al Gore finds more interesting things to do, is discredited somehow, or the movement goes the way of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

[ratkin]

CND declined due to the ending of the cold war , global temperatures are not going to be quite so easy to control.
The melting of the ice caps is accelarating.

I sPecialise in investing in beverage companies, nothing to do with global warming but the more the climate warms , the more people will drink. had frucor, montana, coca cola, schweppes, neverfail , charlies , 42 below etc, db and lion and they all been top investments , even charlies !!

[Skol]

Excellent article about the global warming fraud in todays Australian. You should read this. This business is crowd psychology and herd behaviour at its best, so us contrarians should be able to make some money out of it. I've made some out of uranium but out of that now except for CMR. Uranium 's due for a rest so what's the next chapter?

With millions believing this hoax there will be lots more money made from these sheep, we just need to find the listed company selling the right product.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html?from=public_rss

[shasta]

Perhaps the worlds "global warming" experts should come down to Wellington for the winter.

Absolutely no signs of global warming here at the moment...[xx(]

I look forward to the day i can grow banana's in Wellington!:D

[Skol]

Today I asked my daughter, who goes to high school, whether global warming is often discussed in class. The answer was yes. I enquired as to whether anyone ever produced a contrarian argument and the answer was an emphatic no and a strange look. Not PC.
When manias reach this stage there is big profits to be had and I will be starting to hunt in earnest in the next few days. I never expected the climate change frenzy to reach anything like it's become so maybe as resources reach their peak it time to milk the global warmers.

[Huang Chung]

The summer just gone was one of the mildest I can remember in these parts.

Shades of the Y2K mania if you ask me......

[Scuffer]

I hope global warming doesn't happen too fast I just bought a season pass for the ski field.

[JBmurc]

quote:Originally posted by Scuffer

I hope global warming doesn't happen too fast I just bought a season pass for the ski field.


;)hope not-Scuffer been great boarding here of late
-Currently here in Queenstown -3c was -6 last night got a max of 6c tomorrow my temp in my 4WD today didn't get above 4c-
I even see there was Ice forming on the shotover river -Global warming[?]
-Last yrs massive dump in Canterbury [?]
I'm 50:50 on Global warming

[Skol]

I see Al Gore, the head sheep is back on the scene with a vengeance in spite of the fact that he travels in a private jet and his personal household power bill is US$36000 pa. (True)
Kiwis might have noticed that the Government, the Minister for climate change, Helen Clark, all of a sudden very reticent about global warming since some moron invented the words "food miles".
If "food miles" gains any traction sell anything to do with companies that export food or meat from Aust or NZ.

[Mick100]

quote:Originally posted by Skol

If "food miles" gains any traction sell anything to do with companies that export food or meat from Aust or NZ.


Ag/food commodities will be increasingly going to Asian countries in the future. The "food miles" factor seems more like an advantage than a diadvantage to Aust. and NZ from my point of veiw, particuarly for Queensland and the NT.

You should also take into consideration that food exports have a much higher value per ton than the likes of coal, logs or iron ore.
This means the freight component of their "on the shelf cost" will be relatively small.
.

[Huang Chung]

Just saw on the news all the plastic bottles strewn everywhere after one of those Live Earth concerts....what a hypocritical joke!

[clearasmud]

I'm a contrarian and bottem feeder :D

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bloom/bloom062707.html

Why (Really) is our Planet Warming (II)

Brian Bloom
June 27, 2007
www.beyondneanderthal.com


There have been a few negative responses to my earlier article entitled “Why (really) is our Planet Warming”. What I found fascinating about these responses was the deep level of conviction that I was (am) wrong. There was a propensity of some (not all) to focus more on destroying my credibility than my argument. The three “possibilities” noted in the article are the arguments as put forward by some protagonists of the linkage between CO2 and Global Warming. The rebuttals explain why these arguments cannot logically be correct. Interestingly, no-one seems to talk about Carbon Monoxide – which is poisonous and which should behave in the same manner as the CO2.

Here is my response to one man who was courteous enough to focus on my argument.


Hi Richard,
Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me and to send me that weblink which I watched with great interest.
www.agu.org/sci_soc/eiskappenman.html

First off, I am not a scientist and don't claim to have a monopoly on brains. It’s quite possible – very possible – that I’ve got it wrong. Secondly, it’s also possible that the information on that particular weblink is also wrong. Just because it’s in the public domain doesn’t make it “true”. The information on that weblink also needs to pass the common sense test.

Here’s my common sense argument:
My "key" issue is that CO2 is heavier than air. When dry ice melts, the CO2 gas doesn’t rise, it sinks. Other than dissolving in minute aerosols of water to form carbonic acid that float around temporarily; or by pure CO2 molecules being carried into the atmosphere by adhesion to multiple “attendants” of other lighter than air matter, my common sense cannot accept (understand) how an ever increasing amount of that which is heavier than air can float around in our atmosphere indefinitely. At some point, the water vapour will become saturated, and/or there will be too much CO2 floating around to be supported by attendants – and the heavier than air material will sink back to earth as predicted by Newton’s Third Law of Gravity.

In summary, it seems to me that after saturation has been reached, the surplus CO2 will descend back to earth to join with calcium oxide in our waterways and – eventually - form limestone and other calcium carbonate rocks. That’s my understanding of how CaCO2 rocks were formed over the aeons. CaCO3 (limestone) is one of the building blocks of the world’s coral reefs.

Then there is the issue of “short” wave lengths of visible light suddenly morphing to become “longer” wave lengths of infra-red. It is the short (visible) wave lengths in the colour spectrum which are reflected by the Earth’s surface depending on the albedo coefficient. All wavelengths that do not correspond precisely with the colour of a particular reflective surface are absorbed by that surface – which causes that surface to heat up. What is radiated by the Earth’s surface as a whole is “warmth”, which is not necessarily the same as infrared electromagnetic energy. The reason (again this is my understanding) that the surface of the Earth heats up, is that the molecules which make up the material which is absorbing the electromagnetic energy from the sun become excited. They collide against each other, thereby generating a form of heat associated with friction. It’s possible that this heat is infrared energy, but I’ve never understood it that way. For the arguments to be true, friction heat would have to equate with infra red energy. I would have to accept that by rubbing my cold hands together I artificially create infra-red electromagnetic irradiation. I would also have to accept that the heat trapped under my bed linen at night is composed of infrared energy and that all forms of heat are infra-red energy. (Possible, but not how I understand it)

Then there’s the problem that – let’s accept that it is infra

[Capybara]

I think that Co2 is another in the long lines of scare tactics feed to us by goverments to keep the herd scared. Remember in the 80's when everybody was going to die of AIDS? Or how bout bird flu?
Skol im with you on this one.
If you have a little spare time go to Google video, do do a search on 'Global warming swindle' makes for very interesting watching.

Disc: Large offensive 4WD, Thirsty V6 on the boat, and I warm my house with an open fire, burning native timber.

[peterb]

You would be an imbecile to bet against "global warming". But don't take my word for it, there are plenty of commonly available sources of information with a high level of scientific veracity. The problem is there are many sources out there who promote false evidence of global warming, and many of these become highly publicised. A good place to start is the New Scientist, which has a nice article which explains/debunks 26 commonly held myths (from both standpoints) about global warming.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Now the New Scientist is not the most in depth source of scientific information. But it does reliably and honestly report on established scientific phenomena about which there is a good degree of scientific consensus. It may be that you will find something said by New Scientist which you think is contrary to a scientific opinion that you agree with, but that does not disqualify it from giving an excellent overview of the issues surrounding the topic of "global warming"

Common misunderstandings about "global warming" are many, not in the least that "global warming" is a somewhat misleading term, in that it refers to a projected planet-wide average temperature rise. Consequently many people prefer to use the term "climate change".

Going through the thread I see the classic climate change rebuttals: that CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas (in the total composition greenhouse gases of the atmosphere), that human C02 emissions are small, that "green technologies" aren't really green because they incourage consumption and are difficult to create. These may all be true, but do not disprove "climate change".

Another favorite past-time of climate change skeptics is to beat up on Al Gore. Al Gore, it is true, lives an indulgent lifestyle which consumes a lot of electricity, natural resources, etc., and counteracts this by buying "carbon credits" i.e. effectively paying for the planting of a large number of trees. Personally, I think he should just cut out the lifestyle and consume less. But it is his lifestyle which is most frequently attacked, rather than the science which he presents: the reason? Its a lot easier to attack the messenger than deal with their message. Which is not to say that a number of the things Al Gore says are speculative, even hyped, and are worthily rebutted. But this does not disprove the hard facts of his message.

Capybara, you are a moron,


quote:Remember in the 80's when everybody was going to die of AIDS?

Aids has killed millions of people. There are 10s of millions of people with AIDS who will die of it. Bird Flu also has hugely dangerous potential, and just because health organisations have done well to counter its spread does not mean that its doesn't exist as a potentials threat.

Basically, people who don't know about global warming/climate change shouldn't go strait to the heart of the climate change skeptics hornet's nest, neither should they go to the green party website, they probably shouldnt watch "An Inconvenient Truth" either if their political persuasion causes them to err away from Al Gore in a reactionary fashion. Rather, they should seek neutral, scientifically established information which gives them a grounding in the topic, so they can then asses the wider presentation of "global warming" topics. This is a good place to start.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Skol, I suspect any such investments you make in this direction will fail miserably: being so rabidly opposed to assessing the true status of a situation never did any investor any good.

[Skol]

Just a few moments ago I'm watching tv and hearing that 30 billion water bottles are left lying around the world per annum and that its takes 2 ounces of oil to get one bottle of Evian water from France to the US. Why is H2O more expensive than petrol? Why do people pay these outrageous prices when you can fill up from home? I've got 35000 litres in my rain water tanks out the back and I'm not even a greeny.
I listened a couple of years back to an associate professor of health at Dallas university say that drinking branded bottled water is nothing less than a fad, herd instinct if you like. Thirst is a very sophisticated mechanism and if you're thirsty your body will tell you. Drink lots of water and you urinate.
Sell bottled water companies.

[peterb]

correct, bottled water is an outrageous fad, now how about replying to what I said?

[rev]

Water is more expensive than petrol because companies know people are prepared to pay inflated prices fot it. Me, I'm happy with dirty old creek water - straight of the ranges and into my belly.

[Skol]

peterb

"a chain of logical argumentation is totally incomprehensible to crowds, and for this reason it is permissible to say that they do not reason or that they reason falsely and are not to be influenced by reasoning"

Gustave Le Bon
"The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind" (1896)
[/quote]

This is why. I'm a contrarian I go against the accepted wisdom and don't do too badly out of it.

[peterb]

Being a contrarian is one thing, betting your capital against very probable scientific evidence is another. I myself am not one to follow a mod, or draw on mob instinct, and I know very well theres a buck to be made in being a contrarian investor, but why don't you take up my challenge and have a look at the link I provided?

[Capybara]

There is evidence that the world is warming, however, I belive that the jury is still out on the fact that Co2 is causing it. And I dont belive taxing companies will fix the problem.
There is 1 carbon netral airline in the world, they achive this, through, using old fuel inefficent airliners, however own shares in a windwarm, go figure.
The media will find somthing else to sell newspapers soon and there will be some other buzzwords to elevate the terror level.

[Skol]

peterb,

Yes I've had a look at that and don't have a spare couple of days to read it all. if you want to believe it go ahead. While I'm a contrarian I'm also happy to jump aboard the climate change gravy train and make some money out of suckers along the way, greater fool theory if you like, as long as I get off before chickens come home to roost if I can use another cliche.
In 100 years your descendants will be howling with laughter at the "global warmers and climate changers' much as we might regard witch mania or
the tech wreck loonies with a bit of humour.
I made money in '87. How many out there can say that? 2001 too by the way, just checked my records.

[peterb]

skol it won't take you a couple of days, you can scroll down the page and find your favourite myths about global warming and have a little read. You crow about your contrariness and thats fine, but it doesn't automatically have relevance here. Would you say the earth was flat and proudly state that was an example of your contrariness? Why do you use the example of the 87 crash? That was something which did actually happen- if you want to make a thread saying "lets make money out of global warning" then we could discuss ways to make money by going against faux greenie trends currently in vogue, but that wouldnt mean climate change didn't exist.

[georgeofthejungle]

Capybara - that's a great effort being called a "moron" from your first post! There are obviously some who believe in global warming/climate change with a religious fervour.

I don't think either side can claim that they are proven right at this stage. It may be laughed 100 years in the same way that we now laugh at at the belief that Earth is the centre of the universe. However, it is a problem that is hard to undo if it is proven to be true but ignored - how are we going to reverse shrunken ice caps and a 5m rise in sea levels?

Peterb - I read most of that New Scientist article and they do a good job at explaining their point of view and presenting a number of interesting facts. It does not in any way prove that climate change is a result of CO2 emissions from humans or that we even produce enough to make a significant difference. I would compare it to the Christianity vs Evolution debate. Both sides claim to have the evidence to debunk the other and do a good job at trying to convince you to their point of view. Both sides also have holes in their arguments and they are always highlighted by people who choose to debate that topic so naturally they attract a lot of attention.

The media will tell you anything that sells. Climate change has been dramatised a lot in the media and a lot have fallen for this and it has snowballed into everything from coal produced electricity, food miles, product packaging and cow's farts. A great way to keep selling newspapers by continually bringing up bad things that humans do to contribute to climate change.

Now that many are now "primed" into climate change, the media can bring up the anti climate change theories and sell even more newspapers.

All these climate change chest beaters are frustrating and it is only sensible to question them. However, I don't believe that we can definitely say that humans are not responsible for climate change either.

GOTJ

p.s, if you look at my post on http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23323&whichpage=33
there is an example of totally incorrect conclusions can be drawn from a rise in average world temperature. This could well be the same for CO2 emissions vs a rise in global temperature.

[bermuda]

I live in ChCh and just cannot understand why people buy bottled water when our artesian tap water is the finest in the world.Not just the finest in the world but the best water you can drink.

[Capybara]

Yeah I thought it was a pretty good effort myself! At least my mum still loves me.
I just think that there are 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth, however the media will only report the side that makes them the most money.

[peterb]

george of the jungle, i called capybara a moron for his statement about AIDS, not for his opposition to global warming: his statements about that were only lame, ignorant and hot headed-macho. Of course the new scientist article doesn't prove anything. Proof requires that you read dozens of academic papers from a wide spectrum of scientific standpoint. What that New Scientist article does is clear up many common confusions about global warming which many people on this thread are cofounded by (though not you particularly maybe). You make a good point, that the supposed effects of GW can't be undone, which is why we take cursory/indicative evidence of GW, add them to what we do know for sure about GW, and worry about them even if they aren't as sure as "The world is not flat". Many of the greatest scientific discoverys to date are just theorised and are not proven, they are also devilishly complex and essentially incomprehensible to most human thinkers (myself included). While I would call awareness of GW on of these great scientific discoverys, it has complexities and counter-intuative aspects; some of it is still theorised. However speculative some aspects of it may be, it is not sufficient to dismiss it on the basis of Exxon PR or extreme political lobbying.

But my argument is more this: the author of the thread, skol, has said that he is going to bet against global warming by investing in companies that he sees as being unpopular because of its apparent GW effects. However he seems reluctant to do much research on the GW side of the argument to "confront the enemy": If I want to invest in a company, and I see that Gareth Morgan, or Roger Kerr, or Roger Douglas, generally someone who I often disagree with, is commenting on an issue which effects that company, I will digest their point of view and find it useful, because despite many disagreements I also know that they know a lot about some things that I don't. Basically this Skol dude is saying: "I don't believe GW is true; This is because there are a lot of fashion greenies out there who talk a lot of ****; I'm such a contrarian that I don't even need to follow up some basic, reliable sources; I'm happy to stick with all my original bigoted opinions despite the fact that I created this thread asking for suggestions."

Make sense? I sure can't make head or tail of it!

[Skol]

peterb

I,ve read about global warming in the newspapers to the nth degree. I hope you've read my link towards the bottom of the first page here, it puts it in a nutshell. In this article I would guess that you are 'soft left' type from your posts.
I know a fair bit about manias, panics and crashes and started trading in 1975. GW has all the hallmarks of new era type mania and I intend to profit from the naivety of this lot.
I'm following the GW lunacy very carefully because this is an opportunity, maybe once in a lifetime to observe a truly global madness. Most sheep type behaviour is observed at a lower level e.g. professional football players, most not renowned for their intelligence indulge in herd behaviour with their mates all the time, read about it in the papers. Fighting while intoxicated, big spendups, urinating in public bars, wrecking their cars etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in cleaning the place up and despise pollution,but the GW argument is out of control when tens of millions believe in something that isn't proven.

A new era type mania is one where the sheep say that "it's all different now". A classic example was the lead up to the crash of 2001 where the techies rubbished and sold off natural resource companies because high tech would solve everything. About 1996, being a contrarian I decided to invest in resources through a mutual fund.
For the last 7 years this fund has averaged 27% return. Very satisfying.

[peterb]

So I give you a link to a science magazine, but you tell me you don't want to read any more newspapers, then tell me to follow a link to an article on The Australian's website, which is an opinion piece by a film maker (not a scientist). If you are looking for an example of someone who has done well out of GW, then look no further than Martin Durkin, he has given GW skeptics a bit of an icon to follow. And before you accuse me of similar, if you refer to my previous posts you will see that I didn't recommend Al Gore to find out about GW. However I did read Martin Durkin's piece, and it is filled with emotive language. Basic research will show you that a number of scientists Durkin talked to felt misrepresented in his film, and that he relied heavily on one particular paper which has been thoughtfully dissected (in a reasonable and non-emotive fahsion) by other scientists to have many holes and contain poor representation of scientific data.

If you care so much about polution and the cleanliness of the planet (which you claim to do) why don't you have a little read of the New Scientist page I linked you to. I promise it won't constitue a communist invasion of your mind. And as for your extrapolation of my political position, well just because I don't agree with the far rightists I mentioned in my previous post doesn't mean I'm a raging lefty with no integrity.

And why do you keep talking about mass crowd behavior which is totally unconnected to this issue: I know contratians made money on resources that were being dumped in the tech hype, I know a whole lot of wasteful celebrities and sports stars have jumped on the global warming bandwagon.

Why do you categorically say we can't heed something which isn't proven? Where do you draw the line of proof? The fact that many people spout off about the dangers of global warming without knowing much as all about the science except to say "CO2" isn't surprising. I personally can't stand such people, but just because a whole lot of people who have essentially no idea are following a comparitively small but nonetheless sizeable scientific majority doesn't mean the cause is wrong. People will talk about gravity, when infact they have no idea how it actually works, people will talk about household solvents and detergents and say how effective they are without knowing the actual chemical processes.

Essentially, you set up straw obstacles to blast away with fallacious arguments. Why don't you do some balanced research instead of reading the rantings of people like Durkin (who has very odd political views)? Are you afraid you will find out something that will change your mind?

[Skol]

Aaaaaaah, the voice of the herd.

[peterb]

The voice of the herd eh? You're talking crap mate. Who do you think deluding, you yourself are part of an emotively charged, rationale-devoid herd it seems, because now you dismiss what I say without even reading it.

[Mothman]

How do you like this idea Skol:

1. Buy into companies that will profit from global warming (or herd mentality - whatever you want to call it)like green energy, green waste, green buildings)
2. Ride the wave as the shares are rerated upwards
3. Sell out at with a juicy profit
4. If GW turns out to be a fallacy then the green bubble will burst

I wouldn\'t want to bet against the herd at the beginning of what could be a very profitable couple of years. (The so-called Green bubble)

[I.T.Ancient]

Those who want to read a calmly reasoned summary of the skeptical position (including direct responses to the New Scientist article), would be well advised to follow this link and download the pdf therein:-

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/global-warming-.html

[Skol]

Mothman,
I thought recycling industries, natural gas producers and maybe photovoltaic panel producers. Even though these panels require batteries they will attract subsidies from govts and local bodies. A bit like Toyota Prius's, feelgood factor.

You could try CFU. Ceramic Fuel Cells, trending up, AIM listed, high tech, no debt, etc. Bit of a spike in the volume in the last couple of days too.
Lokoing at the chart this could be interesting in the next few days.

[peterb]

sorry ITA, where are the direct responses to the New Scientist article. I think you linked to a related page, but not the right one.

[gjc]

C'mon PeteB, you seemed more than a little miffed when Skol and others didn't (in your opinion) invest enough time to read through the entire New Scientist article you suggested to them, yet when IT Ancient suggests an equally worthwhile (albeit contrarian) article to you, you can't be bothered to follow his simple instructions to download the pdf and read the article?![:0]

Here's a direct link for the pdf, just in case you simply had trouble finding it on the webpage:;)
http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1. 0.pdf

I also highly recommend this paper to you (and anyone even remotely interested in this debate, which should be all of us) as a well presented outline of the contrarian point of view.:)

And before you ask, no, it is not a point-by-point response to the 26 points covered in your New Scientist article, but it does cover all the same territory, but from an alternative viewpoint.[^]

Regards, GJC.:D

[peterb]

actually gjc I invested no particular emotion in the response to ITA, I did follow his link and I read the whole (pretty short) post by coyote or whoever and I had a look at some of the comments but blog comments aren't usually considered to be of equal standing to new scientist. I didnt expect anyone to read the whole thing on NS, if one goes to the link I provided it has a nice index of various myths about GW (including some of the myths from the left) and then discusses them. What I expected wasn't to hard for skol, someone who claimed to care about polution and a clean planet and all that, and started a thread because he wanted suggestions about investing against GW. I was not so much miffed, as unimpressed, when he responded to one of my posts with a weak one liner. I was also scathing to a moron who suggested that aids was some sort of hoax and it turned out not to have killed anyone afterall. To the other people I just said geez its not that hard, its a reliable source of information, one should bother to have a look.etc I don't really care so much in the end what people think about GW, but I don't really like to be complacent and just sit on my understandings and opinions and not interact with reasoned argument from other perspectives. So when someone like skol closes themselves off from debate its ultimately something they, not I, have to contend with.

I will have a look at the pdf later as don't have time now, my question to ITA was genuine as in I didn't see what he referred to but it seemed related, so thanks for the link. But it is disappointing that what you're linking to doesn't have point by point responses as thats whats ITA seemed to suggest. Anyway I'll have a look at it later.

[I.T.Ancient]

To see the point by point responses to the New Scientist article, start from page 69 of the pdf.

[peterb]

ok cheers

[gjc]

PeterB,

Thanks for the reply, appreciate it.[^]

I still feel you engaged in the same "unimpressive" behaviour by not at least digging a little into ITA's suggested article, as you say Skol displayed by not fully reading through your suggested article, but let's not get bogged down and move on.

One comment I would like to make - in good spirit - is if you stand by your comment:

" but I don't really like to be complacent and just sit on my understandings and opinions and not interact with reasoned argument from other perspectives "

then you should read the whole article (and other pro- and con- AGW papers), and not just New Scientist rebuttals which start on page 69, as indicated by ITA. The rubuttals are certainly an interesting part of the article, and will be of particular interest to you due to your pre-existing knowledge of the New Scientist article.

However, I feel it is worth pointing out that the preceeding 68 pages of the article are a more important read. They obviously go into much greater detail on all of the different points covered in the NS rebuttals section, but they importantly also cover other points on the AGW debate that were (conveniently?) not covered in the NS article.

Happy reading, and I welcome your further comments.:)

Regards, GJC.

[Skol]

I've read more than enough about global warming, the main reason I observe this matter is to watch the progress of this hysteria. The more press, more exposure the greater the chance of making good profits as it goes on. You wont find too many politicians with views like mine because they're worried about the consequences of opposing such a popular delusion. Better to get on board and pick up a few votes along the way. When the subject comes up and I express my views I'm surprised at how many have grave reservations about climate change, most wont say much because it's not PC and they're concerned about being rubbished as the infidel, the unbeliever,a sure sign of herd instinct.
Toyota have very cleverly managed to cash in on this behaviour deluxe by producing the Toyota Prius which the've managed to sell to heaps of suckers. Lots of Hollywood stars (who love popular causes) own them, so that's a sure sign it's a suckers game. The numbers don't stack up but that doesn't matter as long as they sell them, but try telling that to gullible owners.
Wanna buy a cheap car? Wait 2/3 years, either the reality of the situation will have dawned on the Prius owners or price of oil will plunge to $10 bbl like it did after the last round of Arab oil gouges 20 years ago when we were told all the oil in the world will be consumed by 2005.

P.S. Make sure it's got a new set of batteries, they're US$2500.

[gjc]

Skol,

I hear you. Both about not wanting to read any more on this topic, and also on just how bovine-like the human herd can be. You would swear that we are simply incapable of independent thought these days!

And sorry if PeterB and I have hi-jacked your thread somewhat. We seem to be using this forum to argue the AGW debate, rather than discussing how to profit from it, sorry.

To return to that point, I think you need to seek out opportunistic companies who are out there peddling their eco-friendly goods and services to the gullible public, but who still have a ruthless "greed is good" board controlling the company. Such companies will be purely into these new age warm and fuzzy products or technologies to make a buck, even though their marketing will say otherwise, and we should be able to piggy-back their success in the short term, say, 3 to 5 years.

Then look for indicators that the herd has had enough of the AGW BS and are looking for the next fad to focus their attention on. At this point get off the new age green stocks, and get back on the out of favour carbon producing stocks which will be heavily discounted to their true worth by this stage.

The key indicator for this change in herd sentiment in my opinion will be when we first start to hear grumblings from the herd that all this carbon neutral nonsense is starting to cost them money. Everyone loves being PC and part of the "in" crowd (herd?) whilst it isn't costing them anything, but as soon as they realise that life is getting more expensive on a low carbon diet they will drop it like a stone.

And finally, for those of you who haven't had enough reading yet, check out the following website:

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html

or book:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0301satanicgasses.htm

if you are interested.

Regards, GJC.

[peterb]

gjc, as I said I did go to the page ITA originally posted and where the location of the actual pdf article wasnt obvious. Thats not the same as what I said about skol. But having "digged into" Warren Meyer's article a bit, I find it hard to take him seriously because of his acknowledged political stance:early in he states that the main force behind global warming is an umbrella group comprising marxists, anticapitalists, anti-multinationalists, left wing environmentalists. His responses to NS mostly begin with sentences like "this is hilarious," and picking out sentences which aren't really the essence of the discussion. Ultimately I'm not really that interested in dissecting the ( somewhat impressive) obsessive construction of a layman, but rather I'm keen to see the spectrum of scientific papers. My original mentioning of the NS article was because some posters had some really basic misconceptions about GW. But it seems that you have no interest in what I'm saying and I have no interest in what you're all saying so maybe we should leave it at that.

As has already has been said, so-called out of favour (environmentally) companies are flying high at the moment, so it seems if anyone wants to make big gains they have to join the speculation game and jump on with some green stocks: who knows you may be rewarded for your cynicism.

[clearasmud]

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bloom/bloom071907.html


Global Warming – Wrap Up (Can scientists be blindly trusted?)
Brian Bloom
July 19, 2007
www.beyondneanderthal.com
info@beyondneanderthal.com



Introduction

Arising from earlier articles which I published on the subject of the possible causes of Global Warming, I have been in email communication with three “heavyweights” in the fields of Physics, Geophysics, Astronomy and Chemistry. These gentlemen have taken the trouble to point out where, as a layman, my knowledge of science was deficient. They have also educated me in the processes involved in the phenomenon – as they see these processes.

Of the three, one is committed to the linkage between Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming. The other two are not. I thank them for straightening out my thinking, and for enabling me to write the article below which sets out the state of play.

Note: This article is unusually long. It is therefore divided into two sections: “Summary and Conclusion”, and “Validation”

Summary and Conclusion

For the sake of completeness, there are three possible sources of heat which could have given rise to the recent Global Warming phenomenon. These are:

1. Electromagnetic irradiation which arrives from our Sun. As a subset of this, there are two possibilities which might even be acting in parallel:

a. The irradiation levels of our sun have increased as a result of increased sunspot activity
b. The albedo effect (percentage of the sun’s rays which are reflected by the Earth’s surface) may have been falling as highly reflective white snow and ice melts, and as the resulting dark surface beneath is exposed – causing a higher amount of energy to be absorbed by the Earth’s surface; which is then re-emitted in the form of Infra-Red energy waves.
(Chemist’s comment: “I believe that in the long run this is the most important of all since it is in the nature of a positive feedback loop that accelerates the current trend. It can account for increasing temperatures when temperatures are rising and accelerating decreasing temperatures when the trend is down, accounting for ice ages. The trend will continue until it reaches its limit. Think of it this way: earth temperature will drop if the amount of absorbed solar energy is less than the net amount of emitted IR. A snow field reflects (does not absorb) about 93% of the solar radiation but as a solid it emits IR in the manner of a solid non metal. Considering the heat capacity variation with temperature there is good reason to believe the snow will emit IR radiation just as efficiently as most other solids on earths surface. Thus we have situation where decreasing snow field area and duration increases net solar thermal input but it does not make as significant an increase in IR energy output, thus resulting in higher temperatures. Example: Compare a white painted surface with a black painted surface; one absorbs solar radiation much better than the other and turns it to heat which raises the temperature to such a level that all the energy can be emitted as IR. But both surfaces emit IR equally well, so the black surface will naturally rise to the higher temperature. In the case of earth rising temperatures of the oceans will give rise to more water vapour which may contribute to a greenhouse gas effect. The wavelengths of IR emitted or absorbed by snow will be a broad band while that emitted or absorbed by water vapour will be a narrow band governed by one kind of vibration and three kinds of rotation, so there is no chance that a major part of the IR from the snow will be absorbed by water vapour and radiated back to earth. The enormous mass of earth’s oceans will cause reversal of trends to be slow, just as the ice age cycle is slow).”


2. Raised levels of Greenhouse Gases in our atmosphere – in particular water vapour and/or CO2 – which trap some of the Infra-Red irradiation being radiated back by the Earth and/or radiate it back again towards the Earth’s surface.

3. Rising temperatures of the Earth’s in