Jump to content

sprotty

Member
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington, NZ

sprotty's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. It wasn't addressed to you at all but all anti-anthropogenists (hopefully this isn't offensive to anyone). I didn't realise that the term I used had such connotations. I guess this is at least proof of Godwins Law. I come to this site to learn and certainly have. Probably the main learning is to keep opinions to myself on this site which I will from now on.
  2. My post was in no way meant to be a crack at you. The inverted commas around the term you seem to have taken exception to signified "for want of a better term" and was direct at "deniers" in general not you specifically. My question was a honest one - what is the agenda of the official agencies and "pro-agw climate scientists" in misrepresenting data? In the few quite genuine posts I have made on this thread I have been accused of being emotive and calling people petty names. Phew. I don't think I am the one being emotive.
  3. Just what do you think is their agenda? It's pretty clear what the "deniers" agenda is but not so clear what the agenda is of those who are reporting the effects of climate change other than to make change before its too late.
  4. Or perhaps he was asked to step down because he was taking backhanders from Koch industries to act as a spokesman. I do agree we will never find middle ground so best we call it a day. I'll finish with the question I posed to you - what if AGW is caused by humans and we do nothing because we can't agree on the science (for whatever reason)? Is it worth the risk?
  5. I think that Trump has demonstrated his proclivity to saw off anyone who doesn't agree with him to silence them - which is why I'm surprised that NASA has not been asked to take their "findings" down. The 97% consensus that is oft cited is based on a survey of peer researched papers on climate change. https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-con...discredited.htm Legates is another fossil fuel shrew who has largely been discredited and was asked to step down from his tenure at the University of Delaware due to his "unfounded" views on climate change.. I'm sure the 10000 people in Greenland will be overjoyed with Climate change - shame for the 30+% who live coastal regions and many more in already hot climates who are facing neverending droughts.I acknowledge that some climate change may be beneficial to some environments. I'm not sure my wildlife statement is overly emotive but rather more factual. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/b...edented-report/ One thing we can agree on - Nuclear Energy is ignored and is undoubtedly our one chance to create the power requirements of the human race in the future. Shame Trump shut down Bill Gates' "clean" nuclear power pilot with the Chinese.
  6. Fair point although given Trumps stance on climate change and proclivity to cut of anyone who disagrees with him would suggest otherwise. And the other majority of scientists who say it is caused by humans are also all supported by vested interests? Is it worth the risk to be right? Pollution and peak oil are both real right? Certainly worthwhile at least dealing with those before we wipe out all of the wildlife on the planet?
  7. I guess I am not qualified to answer that and I rely on those who do this sort of thing for a living. I would tend to trust NASA scientists rather than a bunch of retired scientists funded by vested interest groups (who are in the minority amongst peers) https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ Question - is it worth the risk to be right?
  8. No conflicts of interest given where their funding comes from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science
  9. Does anyone know what date shareholders need to have been on the register to be eligible to participate in the rights issue?
  10. Melua My read of the situation with BCC is the same as yours. I have jumped ship until the company can tell us how they are going to pay for the Alaskan exploration. I can't see LC drill producing the amount of cash they need but may be wrong - nothing they have told us so far indicates they will but they have been economical with hard data. If there is a capital raising I will consider jumping back in once the dilution effect has settled. cheers
  11. sprotty

    PLA

    Hi arty, where do you see the next level of support for PLA? I have followed this stock for a while but don't currently hold. Thanks in advance.
  12. sprotty

    PLA

    did you stay in? it fell out of bed this afternoon. looks like value but momentum against it.
  13. Can any of the posters here point me in the direction of some index ETFs that track emerging markets, a basket of BRIC shares. I am especially interested in country specific ones like all India or Brazil. There are a couple that I am aware of - CSU and IEM but am keen to evaluate a few so any suggestions welcomed. Thanks in advance.
  14. K1 I have followed your posts for a few years and if they have taught me anything it is to question everything. Your posts have certainly saved me greater losses than I would otherwise have had - I wished I had followed your directions wholeheartedly. i would definitely sign up and read your book Great to have you back posting.
  15. DB Many thanks for this post. Occasionally I read something that resonates and seems to make sense amongst all the noise and misinformation. What you have laid out as a possible scenario seems to me to be the most likely and therefore your suggestions on how to play it seem to sum up a good strategy which is lower risk compared to others.
×
×
  • Create New...