Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

frankmal's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. From todays Google News (Australia)... Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking 18 Apr 2009, 2127 hrs SYDNEY: New analysis has indicated that contrary to the belief that there is large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, ice is actually expanding in a large portion of the continent. Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month. However, according to a report in the Australian, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia. East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report noted that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades". According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said. The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland. Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global...how/4418558.cms ________________________________________________________________________________ ______
  2. Yes, I also agree with the recent comments. Also please excuse the typographical errors in my previous post...while I was editing it, the blasted message got sent, with typing errors and all...my apologies, Frank
  3. Hi Rio, I have my opinions on this subject, and you obviously have yours, and good luck to you. However, in your reply, are you seriously implying that 'experts' and 'lobbyists' (using your words) are currently not being employed to bolster the apocalyptic 'pro rising sea level theory'; and that this is solely the exclusive reserve of those who consider rising sea level as a hoax and as an alarmist theory? Dr Moernen (the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, irrespective of his other opinions) is by no means the only academic to hold such a dissenting view. i.e Google under the topics of: 'Rising Sea Level Hoax', and 'Global Warming Hoax'. Here it is interesting to learn that although Antarctic sea ice is melting/breaking away on the edges of Antartica, the ice sheet is actually thickening/increasing over the the Antartictic interior land mass. In the interests of providing balance on this forum, I include another countering argument below, for the educational use. I hope you and other readers find it interesting reading. URL link is: http://www.michelsauret.com/Michel%20Saure...ing%20Hoax.html Rising Questions (The Convenient Hoax of Global Warming) by Michel Sauret That funny feeling of Eureka smacked me across the face like a snowball bursting against my cheek. How obvious! I thought, running to the kitchen sink with giddiness and excitement drumming a fingertip vibration up to my throat. I snagged a drinking glass out of the cupboard and set it down in the sink. From the freezer, I snatched an ice tray and twisted it my hands. The cubes popped and cracked loose from the plastic. Tossing ice into the glass, some cubes flew in the sink, swooping left and right like snowboarders on a half-pipe, finally stopping as they clinked against one another. This would be the experiment of all experiments. Simplicity and common sense at their finest. It would trump the discovery of liquid butter in a spray bottle. It would be more glorious than the retractable dog leash. More promising than toenail clippers. This experiment would deliver us all from absurdity. With the glass filled with ice cubes stacking like an awkward tower, I poured water into it from the faucet. The level rose to the top, the ice cracked and swirled and floated. I filled the glass until it couldn’t hold a single other drop. The ice mass bobbed, forming a miniature iceberg, jutting out of the water’s surface like a bruised thumb. Carefully, I placed the glass at the center of a bowl, with a hand-written note next to it: “Important Experiment. Do not touch!†I jumped back into bed and let time run its course while I slept. In the morning, the ice had melted. The water level had dropped a full millimeter. “Heather!†I shouted for my girlfriend, who had kept me warm company through the night. “Look!†I told her, pointing at the glass. She glanced at the glass of water with half-dazed eyes, rubbing the side of her face, tossing her curly hair into a messy bunch. Her lips stopped at mid-yawn. “It’s water,†she said, unimpressed. “Touch it. Touch the bottom of the bowl. There’s no spilled drops.†She did. She tapped the bowl with one finger, felt its dryness, and waited for me to explain. I couldn’t contain my grin. I couldn’t hold in the sheer genius of it allâ€â€ÂÂÂÂlike some heavy relief. “Ice,†I said, as if the word were enough to explain it all. “When ice in water melts, it displaces itself. It takes up less space. The water level drops. It doesn’t rise. It drops.†“So?†“So… if Antartica and other massive icebergs were to melt away, the sea levels would drop, too. There wouldn’t be any catastrophic floods! Don’t you see? It’s so obvious now. Gore’s in it for the money.†“You’re an idiot,†she said and headed to the bathroom to brush her teeth. Okay, so perhaps my own scientific research wasn’t enough to debunk the Apocalyptic view of Global Warming on its own. A glassful of melted ice didn’t exactly stand up against computer models and pages of data. My sea level representation didn’t account for water evaporations, atmospheric densities, or the land-massed icecaps that could melt into the oceans. Except, the basic principle at hand was obvious. In Al Gore’s environmentalist porn flick, “An Inconvenient Truth†he tries to prove how our industrial world of fossil-fuel consumption is causing excessive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, said to boost the Greenhouse Effect, turning the Earth hotter. In his case, warmer temperatures mean melting ice, and thus floods across Florida, Manhattans, and other low-level populated areas. “It’s complete scientific nonsense,†said Dr. Timothy Ball over the phone. His voice was peppy for his old age and a pleasure to listen to despite the static. He was calling me from Alberta, Canada after a short email I had sent him that day. Dr. Ball has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London, has taught at the University of Winnipeg for over 28 years and is one of the leading scientists speaking out against the Global Warming folly. “One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes’ Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupiedâ€â€ÂÂÂÂeven if the ice caps melt completely.†The Principle basically shows what my little experiment had proven over night. When water freezes, it takes up more space. That’s why a Pepsi bottle explodes if you leave it in the freezer too long. When ice melts, its mass decreases in volume. Mathematically, sea levels would not rise twenty feet as claimed by most Global Warming alarmists, but only seventeen inches at most. This is because only mountain tops and land-based icecaps would add to ocean waters, once melted. The question is: How come the Gulf of Mexico and islands like Tuvalu have faced rising waters? “Sea levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years,†said Dr. Ball. “In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today.†Dr. Ball enjoys reminding people that the Vancouver Island once used to be attached to the mainland of British Columbia. This rise has happened for several reasons, one of which is because the Earth’s two uppermost layersâ€â€ÂÂÂÂlithosphere and stratosphereâ€â€ÂÂÂÂhave been shifting constantly over time. This causes isostasy, a change in land elevations due to balances in the Earth’s crust. Should we blame ourselves for that, too? Talking to Dr. Ball on the phone, I couldn’t help but chuckle at all of the contradictions ignored by Global Warming theorists. Not as funny, however, was the fact that Dr. Ball received six death threats in the past months because of his stance on the topic. One of the emails told him he would be dead before Global Warming’s takeover. “Too many good scientists are scared to speak out, and it’s having a chilling effect. Some of them are being shunned into silence,†he said. In part, this is why the so-called “scientific consensus†of Global Warming has gone unchallenged for the past ten years. The question of man’s impact on our climate was first brought up in 1997, by the hand of the famous Kyoto Protocol. The protocol called for industrial countries across the globe to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, making carbon dioxide their primary target. Since then, major political leaders have claimed that most scientists agree with the Protocol’s findings. In his movie and on his tours, Al Gore treats the consensus as an oracle, like some kind of glorious authority that tells us the catastrophes we will face if we don’t change our ways of living. The truth is that a consensus is a matter of opinion, not a matter of scientific fact. Before Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, the consensus said the Earth was flat. Today the consensus is held high on a pedestal. Untouchable. This is because scientists who oppose this man-to-blame mentality face a rough opposition when trying to get published. The general reaction to their argument is, “How dare you speak out against the consensus?†Luckily, not everyone is so easily intimidated. One fact that receives little publicity is that, between 1999 and 2001, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine gathered over 17,800 verified signatures of scientists who opposed the consensus. The cover letter to the petition was penned by Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Science. “I don’t know of a single meteorologistâ€â€ÂÂÂÂand I’m sure that there are some, but none that I know ofâ€â€ÂÂÂÂwho believes man is to blame for Global Warming,†said Bernie Rayno with rapid-fire sentences and words slicked with suspicion. Rayno is an expert senior meteorologist and executive producer of video broadcasting for AccuWeather, Inc. The incorporation is one of the world’s leading weather authorities providing local forecasts for over two million locations worldwide. As a meteorologist, and a computer model expert, Rayno explained how unreliable these models can be when predicting the Earth’s climate across years, or even decades. Such models can’t account for all of the complicated atmospheric factors, the most unpredictable one being the sun’s constant change in radiation and volcanic activities. “We can’t even trust computer models to give us the weather beyond twenty-four hours, but suddenly we’re to believe a model that goes into years?†he said, scoffing at the idea. “It’s nearly impossible to catch all the factors or details. Computer models aren’t perfect. If they were perfect, you wouldn’t need guys like me to interpret them.†Another problem with the data we have is that it can’t go back in time far enough to show if today’s temperatures aren’t part of some global cycle. One thing we know for sure is that there have been at least six major ice ages over the course of the Earth’s history. How did each of those ice ages end, and what’s caused them to melt away? Some environmentalists argue that in the past one thousand years the climate was mild until the last century. This claim is absurd considering that just seven-hundred years ago we came out of the Medieval Warm Periodâ€â€ÂÂÂÂduring which Scandinavian settlements thrived in Greenlandâ€â€ÂÂÂÂfollowed by the Little Ice Age, beginning in the 16th century. These ups and downs of climate shifts had nothing to do with driving escalades and flying private jets, so why should that be different today? I don’t like dwelling on conspiracy theories because they fix issues into black-and-white arguments, but some questions won’t stop pestering me. Why are political activists pursuing this issue with such blind faith, despite the science and common sense going against them? Why is it so critical to blame man for our upcoming doom instead of chucking the problem up to God or Mother Nature? One answer is that God doesn’t pay taxes; Man does. It’s interesting how environmentalists accuse skeptics of being paid by oil companies when scientists who holler “Global Warming!†get their own share of grants. These grants have strong political ties, and the government agencies who fund them know that payday is just around the corner. Look at California. Look at New Zealand. The idea of a Global Warming Tax is spreading like hot butter across toast as the solution for cutting energy consumption. If political groups can make us feel guilty about destroying our world and humanity, we won’t object as much when new taxes come steamrolling by. After all, it’s for a good cause. I’m not saying we should fight back against this environmentalist frenzy by mowing down trees, punching caribou in the face, or dumping oil barrels into the rivers. Taking care of the Earth is critical if we want to make best of our resources. Thing is: Those who fight to protect our environment have their hearts in the right place. Problem is: Their minds are skinny-dipping with polar bears and baby seals, nowhere near the tides of logic. All I’m saying is to raise a few questions. Dig deeper into the research. Melt some ice cubes in a damn glass of water if you need to. Just don’t let the political frenzy swoop you away from shore. The tides will come and recede. Just remember that this is nothing new. RESOURCES: Dr. Timothy Ball: Bernie Rayno: General information about Global Warming: www.friendsofscience.org Essay debating Global Warming: “The Global Warming Folly†by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., D.Sc. www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm Scholar essay arguing against Global Warming misconceptions: “Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?†by C.R. de Freitas www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf Dr. Timothy Ball interview with Tribune Review: www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html Other general information: www.wikipedia.org Common Sense s matter, as I feel
  4. More interesting reading...again make up your own mind. Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' by Christopher Booker in the 'telegraph.co.uk', 28/03/2009 Part of the article is reproduced below for forum/educational/discussion purposes... '...if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. ' The link to the full article is provided below; open the url link and scroll down the page to find it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html
  5. THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm interesting reading...make up your own mind.
  6. 10 March 2009 ASX RELEASE Highly Encouraging Carina Metallurgical Results Yilgarn Iron Ore Project • High lump recovery of up to 68% • Excellent calcining potential to >65% Fe • Physical and thermal properties typically better than industry standard requirements • The ore quality and properties of the Carina product are comparable to other Australian iron ores making it readily marketable http://www.polarismetals.com.au/upload/doc..._Metallurgy.pdf
  7. Oropa Limited ASX ANNOUNCEMENT 19 January 2009 BLACKWOOD CAPITAL LIMITED - FUNDING PACKAGE We refer to Oropa Limited’s (“Oropa or the Companyâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ) announcement dated 31st December 2008 concerning the appointment of Blackwood Capital Limited (“Blackwoodâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ) as lead arranger to complete a funding package of up to $2.0 million for the Company prior to 31st March 2009. The Company is still in negotiations with Blackwood in relation to the final details of the funding package and expects to be in a position to make an announcement within the next week and convene a General Meeting of shareholders in late February. Since entering into the arrangement, the Company has received $266,000 from sophisticated investor clients of Blackwood, which is being used for ongoing working capital requirements. As outlined in the 31st December announcement, the directors have engaged Blackwood in this role to enable Oropa to resume exploration activities at its 75% owned Pungkut gold project in Sumatra, Indonesia and to provide much needed working capital. The timing of the funding initiatives proposed by Blackwood is critical to the ongoing viability of the Company. Oropa’s directors consider that securing the proposed $2.0 million funding package will facilitate the undertaking of the initial phase of the ongoing Pungkut development programs while the Company sources additional substantial funding to advance the project towards feasibility. Yours faithfully, OROPA LIMITED PHILIP C CHRISTIE Director
  8. A bit of optimism for a change... Some Positives For Iron Ore FNArena News - January 08 2009 By Chris Shaw link to article is here: Some Positives For Iron Ore http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp...152AB38E6DC057E
  9. In reply to: flower on Saturday 06/12/08 11:49am flower, 'Ruthless short-selling sharks' operate from many bases in the world, Australia, USA, UK, included . This activity and its source is not confined to the narrow selection of countries mentioned in the Canada related article. I hope you are not trying to imply that 'overseas' short selling pressures are being exerted solely and exclusively by operators based and located from only those countries mentioned in the lifted paragraph article, (posted by the member 'Twobees' at the Commodities thread, originaly written by author G_Arenberg), while failing to make mention of the many other country based operators/(hedge funds) engaged in the practice, some working from very close to home.
  10. QUOTE (jons @ Monday 03/11/08 01:15pm) A close source contacted Southern Gold's Adelaide office earlier today. During the telephone conversation, the company receptionist stated that she was not aware of any Southern Gold staff being retrenched, or rumours to that effect. Instead, she indicated that some Southern Gold personnel were possibly about to be utilised in projects at Southern Uranium's arm of operations. Perhaps this may clarify things. Also concerns about increases in directors' salaries were both welcomed and noted and will be forwarded on to directors. Regarding any other matters, I suggest you telephone their Adelaide office.
  11. Found this article in The Australian - business section...released prior to the AR http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/busin...2-15023,00.html October 13, 2008 SOUTHERN Gold is said to be undervalued and is being listed as a "speculative buy" by Hartleys. Southern Gold - a geographically diverse explorer with a suite of projects primarily focusing on gold and base metals - has a large, highly prospective ground holding in Cambodia. Though exploration is still at a relatively early stage, the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (JOGMEC) has entered into an earn-in joint venture with SAU and is contributing $4.5 million to earn 51 per cent of three of SAU's seven licences in the country. Removing cash and its $2.3 million investment in SNU, Southern Gold has an enterprise value of around $9 million. The $4.5 million expenditure by JOGMEC implies a value of $4.3 million for SAU's share of the three Cambodian joint venture tenements. “Given this, we believe that Southern Gold is significantly undervalued, particularly considering the exploration potential of its projects,†Hartleys said in a note to clients. Its Challenger Area project covers around 5000sqkm. Four tenements are held 100 per cent by SAU, and eight are in a joint venture with Dominion Mining, where Southern Gold can earn up to an 80 per cent interest. Encouraging results to date (including 12m at 7.6g/t gold) on a number of prospects indicate excellent potential for another Challenger style deposit, the most advanced of which is the Golf Bore prospect. The company will also have a number of drilling programs in the near future, as well as a Golf Bore resource in early 2009, leading to a strong news flow over the coming months. Southern Gold Ltd (SAU), Hartleys, Speculative buy, No price target, Last traded at 7c n.b. Am concerned at reading in the online Annual Report about directors increasing their annual salaries since previous year despite the prevailing economic down turn, and tight cash position of the company
  12. Found these articles in today's e-news. Hope they help with this forum thread/discussion and are of some educational benefit... Investment in reverse: Short-selling explained ABC News Posted September 20, 2008 01:00:00 Short-selling, temporarily banned on some stock markets in steps to halt a downward spiral of prices and confidence, is a financial operation which at first sight appears to defy logic. Most people's idea of an investment is to buy an asset which is expected to rise in value, and then pocket the gain generated by that increase or in the form of interest or dividends, or sell it later for a capital gain. In short-selling, however, investors seek to make money from a fall in value. The trick is to borrow the item in question - in most cases company shares, or other securities - from an institution, with the promise of giving it back at a later date. Once the loan has been granted, the investor sells the asset immediately and waits for the price to drop. When, or rather if, that happens, the operator then buys back the assets at the new lower price, returns them to their original owner and pockets the difference. Needless to say, if the price does not fall as expected, the short-seller is in trouble, which is why the technique is risky. In times of market turbulence, as at present in most world markets, short-selling can appear to be a one-way bet and amplify a downward tendency, creating a self-fulfilling price full. Furthermore certain types of short selling are illegal, or at least frowned upon, in most jurisdictions. Examples of such shady dealing are when speculators themselves spread rumours about the future of a stock in order to sell it short. And an arcane technique known as "naked" short-selling, whereby investors manage to sell an asset without even borrowing it, is illegal in most countries, although in normal times it may be difficult to prove that it has actually happened. - AFP http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/20/2369729.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Short-selling ban begins today ABC News Posted September 22, 2008 06:18:00 The short-selling ban is expected to buoy the Australian share market The short-selling ban is expected to buoy the Australian share market. The Australian stock market is expected to react favourably to the news that the corporate regulator has banned the practice of short-selling. The practice will no longer be allowed when the stock market opens today. Short selling is the trading of borrowed shares in such a way that the investor makes money when they lose value. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has announced that short selling of all stocks will not be allowed because it may have been causing unwarranted price fluctuations of stocks. CommSec's chief economist Craig James says the practice should have been banned years ago. "If you don't like a stock you shouldn't be investing in it in the first place, you shouldn't be selling it down and disadvantaging ordinary investors and superannuation holders," he said. Mr James says he sees the ban as a positive move. "There will have to be a little bit of short covering for those companies that have been selling down stocks and that may provide a booster to the share market. "We're looking for the share market to open up 150 points higher but given these significant short selling curbs it may be a fair degree higher." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/22/2370264.htm
  13. 13 cents ouch! http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/puke.gif ...King Baz, or anyone with informed comments? Thank you.
  14. In reply to: OMS on Wednesday 14/05/08 05:59pm Re STX: Strike Oil Thanks OMS, Have downloaded the relevant Rayburn Project operational update announcement concerning the Gilbert Freeman 1 well result...good news and hopefully more to come. Expected a bit more of a market reaction though. Watching developments closely...(Duncan 3 and Gilbert Freeman 2 wells.) http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif
  15. Thanks to all members for your enthusiastic response.http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Here is the current list to date: 14/05/2008 (in order of posting date time) *CVN *STX *SAE *KIK *EMR *MOS *ELK *CTP *OEL *MPO Anyone prepared to estimate what they may be worth one year from now? Cheers
  • Create New...