Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

[Tet]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

'No Sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black

BBC Environment Correspondent

Solar flare pictured by Trace (Nasa)
Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

Truly the funniest thing I have read in quite some time, not suprising that it comes from the BBC and the brit Royal Academy of idiots. This report says nothing regarding how stars actually work, how they produce heat and what to concern ourselves with regarding stars and yes the sun is a star. The report should be measuring the amount of helium found on the sun to give us an indication of if the sun is causing the climate change. Failing to provide that information would lead me to conclude the report is bullshit, which most things coming from Royal Academies and the BBC are. At some point our sun is going to grow so large it swallows up Mercury, the sun will actually be producing less heat when it does but the effect on Mercury is one even the Royal Academy can understand. Later the sun will grow to a size it swallows up Venus and later it will swallow up Earth, all this will be done while the output of energy is decreasing. Maybe the Royal Academy should sit next to a campfire and report on it's effects on body heat, now move 2 feet closer and report on the effects, note the campfire hasn't changed. Once again funny stuff.

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

I thought it would be obvious that the Exxon's, the Gazprom's and the Petrochina's of the world are going to "run out of petroleum to sell" long after they've made their investors a ton of returns off of $300 dollar oil.

What do you mean by “draw me out”?

The reason for my question was I wanted to hear what a investor that has strong beliefs in peak oil and global warming would invest in.
Your response was Oil, as a matter of fact a future of $300 dollar oil.
Wow $300 oil!
If we are running out of oil and the result is $300 dollar oil government policy would apply a massive tax to subsidize and develop alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. A taxation to subsidize alternative energy as well as taxing carbon produced from oil will have a major impact on oil companies returns. Many new carbon tax bills are already being introduced to stop global warming and reduce carbon output by oil and gas energy. In effect carbon reduction will be a major cost to the oil producers and furthermore a tax on oil could accelerate and credit alternative energy as oil reserves deplete. If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. I think that the public will support the same government action and avoid getting raped by the oil companies down to the last drop of oil. The people will demand change and that change will result in less dependence on oil. That’s the trend I see developing now regardless of the oil price.
By the way keep a close eye on the gulf. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/4958345.html

July 11, 2007, 12:09AM
EXPLORATION
Devon Energy wagers $100 million on repeating Chevron's success drilling in the rockbed miles beneath Gulf waters
Digging deep for new oil

By KRISTEN HAYS
2007 Houston Chronicle

Last year, Chevron illustrated the potential of the lower tertiary, an ancient rockbed several miles beneath the water's surface. The company announced that a successful well test showed Jack could be the biggest find in North America since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest oil field, was discovered in the late 1960s.
That test, known as Jack 2, came two years after Chevron drilled Jack 1, the field's first exploratory well. Both were drilled more than 20,000 feet below the seabed in 7,000 feet of water.
Jack 1's result transformed the Jack prospect into a discovery. Jack 2 provided enough information to indicate the field could hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids — which could boost U.S. reserves by as much as 50 percent.

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Hi Bill,

You wrote:

<< If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. >>

I'm with you 100% in hoping that's the case. We in the industrialised world may see quality of life degraded, but people in the poorest parts of the world may be absolutely devastated because global crop production could well be in the front line of inflationary effects.

For the rest of it all, I've got nothing invested in the 'Peak Oil' idea other than my money in some energy hedges. No ideological baggage at all.

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Hi Bill,

You wrote:

<< If this peak oil is real all governments will not stand silent to the last drop of oil in the name of national economic security, they will have a plan, a alternative plan of action and I think that plan of action is now being formulated. >>

I'm with you 100% in hoping that's the case.

You hope that’s the case, oil companies get taxed and those tax dollars generated are used for a alternative energy plan?
You have stated that your investment would be in oil and $300 dollar oil would make investors a ton of returns.
If oil companies are taxed to support a transition for new energy it will not be good for oil companies returns going forward.

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Hi Bill,

You are thinking and second guessing far in advance of the markets. Oil at $80 and $100 a barrel will make investors fat returns. Oil companies with substantial returns are very underpriced right now. I'm not even referring to PE expansion, as it's currently at a very low, unglamorous level in the petroleum sector.

When the general public gets into the viewpoint that petroleum has become the world's #1 strategic asset, you'll see PE expansion chasing their net profits upwards, as the price of the oil leads the way like one of those fake rabbits leading the greyhounds at the race-track.

You write as though the moment "Peak Oil" (which you hint at still considering a comical idea) is acknowledged, the global oil majors, and mid-tier companies will overnight be regarded as wounded ducks not worth anyone's investment. Far from it. This will become THE global strategic resource, and they'll move closer than ever to being producers of a commodity which becomes the world's primary equivalent of MONEY.

I mean well. I don't mean to engage in any personal confrontation with anyone. It's the nearsighted idea, that "depletion is dumb hysterical nonsense" that I wish to rebut - not the individual who may espouse it. The idea that it's not 'different this time' will be revealed wrong - even the normally staid head of the IEA is being quite explicit on the issue already - and delay will be a quite expensive mistake in the process of recognition.

I'm not greatly impressed with the venture capital idea of investing for the long haul - what you seem to be angling is a better fly-trap for profits. Please note, I have not said anything about the MERIT of those alt-energy companies, only about INVESTING in them.

Waiting for it to be safe to get into alt-energy, while the Peak Oil thesis became accepted by the mainstream media, means you had to forego lots of profits in very safe large cap energy and energy service stocks - for the entire past five years, as you probably considered them overhyped and overbought all the way up.

The alt-energy venture stuff is probably full of promise. But they go up, they go down, they go all around. Will you grant me at least that technology startups of any kind are not what you might call "lower risk" investment vehicles?

There are some superb companies in that space. You will probably be able to find some small focused mutual funds that collect a basket of these alt-energy venture firms and rocket up like a saturn booster. I think one should go for it!

I doubled a 60K investment in Uranium juniors in the past 18 months, but now I'm not sure I want to keep playing at that, because I see a lot more people piling in. Please don't hector me about my position on alt-energy as an investment just because my views about "Peak Oil" may irritate you. I've cited some pretty respectable petroleum analysts to support this case. If you don't buy it - I don't feel crestfallen that I've not persuaded you.

Petroleum stocks in any depletion scenario have YEARS to run before their investment prospect fades to the point they are not viable investments. Even with a very sharp peak, we are talking in geological time.

If I've utterly misunderstood the probing and direction of your questions here, where you seem to wish to box me in on some illogic, and you were instead genuinely seeking some my point of view about why investing in 'old school' Petroleum could be profitable, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding the gist of your questioning.

I drive a little turbo-diesel Jetta that gets 47 miles per gallon on the freeway, and I invest in mainstream petroleum and natural gas stocks. What do you drive?

[quigleydoor]

Frequency of weather-related disasters

(Source: Swiss Re via Harvard Business Review) The arguments about average global temperature will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But does anyone doubt the reinsurance industry's statistics on the frequency of "acts of God"?

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Exactly Right.

Stephen Leeb's newsletter, The Complete Investor, foresaw the spike in insurance claims five years ago because he recognized the global temperature change issue (whatever the cause!) was real, and that it would prompt increasing natural disaster insurance claims which would boost the profits of the top insurance carriers.

Talk about prescient deductive reasoning! His pick of course was Berkshire Hathaway, who's balance sheet is so strong they thrive every time smaller insurers take a big hit.

Leeb's call on 'global temperature change' and it's investable consequences was made FIVE YEARS before this chart! Now that's a guy with an open mind - who's looking far ahead!

[quigleydoor]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Stephen Leeb's newsletter, The Complete Investor, foresaw the spike in insurance claims five years ago because he recognized the global temperature change issue (whatever the cause!) was real, and that it would prompt increasing natural disaster insurance claims which would boost the profits of the top insurance carriers.

Talk about prescient deductive reasoning! His pick of course was Berkshire Hathaway, who's balance sheet is so strong they thrive every time smaller insurers take a big hit.

How do you distinguish the top carriers from the losers who priced their policy premiums too low?

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

QuigleyDoor,

<< How do you distinguish the top carriers from the losers who priced their policy premiums too low? >>

Straight answer? I don't know.

I clearly noted it in Mr. Leeb's reco for Berkshire Hathaway about five years ago, but I did not invest into that recommendation.

As he described it back then, the mechanism by which larger and better capitalized insurers actually can prosper in an era of rising insurance claims is counter-intuitive.

Rising claims don't beat the shares down necessarily. Instead they create an environment permitting higher premiums. It was described as being similar to how small-cap stocks can boost their growth in an inflationary environment - the pricing ceiling is removed on the upside.

This description is vague because I read this recommendation five years ago, and your chart of insurance claims jogged my memory. I will try to dig up the old issue in order to quote his explanation as clearly as he proposed it, if it's of material interest to you.

[quigleydoor]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

This description is vague because I read this recommendation five years ago, and your chart of insurance claims jogged my memory. I will try to dig up the old issue in order to quote his explanation as clearly as he proposed it, if it's of material interest to you.

Yes, I would appreciate it, and I'm sure other students here would as well.

[FRED]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

The global greenwash

11/07/2007 (Telegraph UK)

Financial providers have gone green with a vengeance. But are they really helping to save the earth or just using climate change as a gimmick to sell mediocre products?

[bill]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

The Bankers want green, the government is promoting it and the people will get green.

Don't forget to look for the logo: http://www.green-e.org/

[Guest]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

Seems that for the current administration the scientific basis for global warming's attribution to CO2 has been accepted.

That leaves a good part of the debate on ITulip on whether there is any real science in it somewhat of a rearguard action, insofar as even the current Republican administration is now running ahead of us on the issue.

Bush calls climate change talks

Mr Bush says technology holds the key to curbing emissions US President George W Bush has announced that his government will host a multinational conference on climate change in Washington next month. The US has invited the UN, EU and 15 of the world's leading economies to the high-level talks on 27-28 September, the White House said in a statement. The talks will seek to set the stage for an agreement by 2008 on a long-term goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists say the accumulation of such gases is causing global warming. Mr Bush had first proposed the conference on 31 May, shortly before the G8 summit in Germany. 'Global framework' In his invitation, Mr Bush said the US was "committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008". The United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 US President George Bush Q&A: Bush's climate goals This would then contribute to a global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009, he added. The US has invited representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea and the UK, as well as the European Union and United Nations. A White House spokeswoman told the AFP news agency that Mr Bush had invited several EU member states separately "to make sure that these leaders, who have shown great leadership and interest on the issue of climate change, are represented as well". The conference will be hosted by the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. At the G8 summit in June, Mr Bush agreed to make "substantial" but unspecified cuts in emissions and to negotiate a framework to seek a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009. No mandatory target was set for the cuts.

[medved]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

However by taking off on this tagent with Martin Durkin as a reference, Itulip is risking its credibility.

I don't see iTulip using Durkin as a reference. This video is just a small trickle of anti-warming propaganda in a huge flow of pro-warming propaganda. Durkin does nothing more, than interview some climatology/geophysics experts and, also, showing the political side of the GW movement.

I would rather let experts figure it out between themselves. We do have time to wait for them to do it in spite in massive amounts of global whining. What *is* suspicious (and very profitable to some people, as the video clearly explains), is massive support of the GW propaganda by the politicians and the media. You have to have a lot of guts to oppose it. Precisely what contrarians are supposed to do.

m.

[Tet]

Re: Does science prove CO2 causes global warming?

The Bankers want green, the government is promoting it and the people will get green.

Don't forget to look for the logo: http://www.green-e.org/

Odd, but my money is green as well, I wonder if there's a connection.