If you care at all about the planet, you've been following climate change. So it won't be a surprise that in 2009 the Earth's temperate is lower than when we started measuring it accurately, using satellites in the '80s.
It is cold out there! In fact, a key reason water levels are rising so quickly is due to the increase in waterborne ice:
Falling ocean temperatures = more ice = rising sea levels.
On CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” recently, Jay Lehr, a senior fellow and science director at the Heartland Institute, was asked by the host what he considered the dominant influence on Earth’s climate.
“Well, clearly, Lou, it is the sun,” Lehr answered, adding that “if we go back in really recorded human history; in the 13th century, we were probably seven degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now.”
Lehr considers global cooling to be the real threat, part of a natural pattern as we continue coming out of a period known as the Little Ice Age. “If we go back to the Revolutionary War, 300 years ago,” he said, “it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period. And now we’re back into a cooling cycle.” (source: Hell Freezes Over, Investor's Business Daily)Hello? Has anyone tapped good ol' Barack on the shoulder and told him about the Sun's influence on Earth temperatures? My definition of a bubble is anything irrationally counter-fundamental. Green is a solid bubble. Normally, I would go long blankets, but the leveraged currency collapse precludes going long prices. It is a great opportunity to short anything that is expensive and clean. The future is cheap and dirty.
Do you not concede that the buildup in C02 is contributing to warming? The same satellites you mention have also recorded rather dramatic northward migrations of flora and fauna that have long been indigenous to more southerly climates. Cooling or warming?
ReplyDeleteMaybe some day i will get my wish to buy a 1968 Hemi Roadrunner at a reasonable price.
ReplyDeleteFDR, your market observations are generally quite interesting and sometimes spot on. But you diminish your credibility waxing on a topic that clearly you are not qualified to discuss. Stick to what you know: whether gold is a short and whether the Fed is a den of corruption. Leave climate change to the experts.
ReplyDelete"Leave climate change to the experts."
ReplyDeleteI wish there were experts, but climate change is about one thing: another creation to steal your money.
As such, it presents a great opportunity to short green.
"Do you not concede that the buildup in C02 is contributing to warming? The same satellites you mention have also recorded rather dramatic northward migrations of flora and fauna that have long been indigenous to more southerly climates. Cooling or warming?"
ReplyDeleteThe data says we are cooling, so I don't think carbon is contributing to warming. I think we could have been warming in the late 90s early 2000's, Mars and Jupiter showed major signs of warming during the same time period. If so, as I've said on many occasions in the past--it's time to buy blankets while they are cheap. Nature is cyclical.
Worried about your gold shorts?
ReplyDeleteYa should be :)
FDR is a smart guy but he is wrong on gold/silver
ReplyDeleteI will say this only 1 time.
Gold is thee most stable currency that has ever existed.
In a time when all currencies are unstable there is no other place to hold your wealth other than gold/silver/platinum.
Your currency IS YOUR WEALTH.
If you think DOLLARS or YEN Or whatever are safe than buy stock. IF NOT than IGNORE FDR's P metal shorts.
THINK for yourselves.
If you think gold is going to become more valuable, as I do, than you should short the dollar price.
ReplyDeleteSomeone will kill you for a 1 oz gold piece at $50/oz, while no one cares about gold at 1000/oz.
"Do you not concede that the buildup in C02 is contributing to warming?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jstor.org/pss/3058276
Here's the money quote - "The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."
"Green" is the ultimate scam job on the people of the world by clueless elites.
ReplyDeleteWe are no longer in a global warming period.
All this amounts to is another convenient tax for the democrats and a convenient way for companies like GE to suck up huge taxpayer pork giveaways.
If we want to save the world so badly all we need to do is put a turbo charger on each car to increase efficiency. We can achieve virtually ANY mileage goals with the tech we already have.
But that wouldn't be "green" enough for the liberal thieves. GE and the rest want all our money and will fake any science to steal it.
I believe and have seen enough evidence to say that oil is used in many ways to control and to reduce us to servitude. Oil as energy is used as the Fed reserve bank. They are both utilize to control us and to tax us indirectly.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to break free from this bondage we must utilize energy that is around us. This energy is free to all. Promoting the use of cheap and dirty is like promoting the Federal reserve bank over America.
We could argue that oil is warming the planet or that it isn't. I think there is arguments to go both ways. One thing is certain the more oil we use the more "they" have control over us. I am not expert, and I don't believe what experts say, but I will say that oil smells bad, when spilled kills every living thing around it, it is responsible for soot, wars are fought bec of it, people are killed and the list goes on.
I agree with you FDR it is time to rid our country of the Fed reserve bank. I also believe it is time for our country to produce it is own energy. I would hope that it is an energy that is more friendly to all living things around it.
At this point, there really aren't any arguments that oil is warming the planet, because all the data agrees the planet is cooling. Granted, it has only swung to net cooling over the past two years of detailed measurement, but you can't have a new factor that is causing warming if you have undisputed net cooling.
ReplyDeleteThat means two things: (1) the warming that we had was not due to oil, since we aren't continuously warming, but more obviously the solar cycle that also warmed Mars and Jupiter more severely, and (2) we don't really know if the net cooling trend will continue or reverse, nor can we do anything about it. Solar cycle data suggests it is in reverse.
Also, it is important to notice that "investment" (meaning, we simply must steal your money) in green was a key pillar of the G20 agenda, which proves it is now on the swindler list. There is nothing at this point that will change their decision to steal money "for green." We could enter a new ice age tomorrow, and the rich would still create huge corporate welfare programs to seize "green" money.
They have focus-grouped it, it plays, it is a done deal regardless of data. They can always create the data, but they can't create emotional issues that allow them to rampantly steal money. Stealing is all they can do, because they are too dim to compete evenly.
"I would hope that it is an energy that is more friendly to all living things around it."
ReplyDeleteMe too, but that means more carbon, not less. Low carbon hurts green plants. It is one of the many absurdities of the so called green movement that less carbon = green.
FDR,
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I like green is pollution. I think for that reason only we should support green.
I do not agree with your argument that low carbon hurts green plants. If that is the case how did plants survive and thrive when we did not have any of these vehicles.
Climatology is much like economics-- a soft science where unquestioned dogma can lay waste to people's quality of life.
ReplyDeleteSubscribers to AGW, especially uneducated leftists and journalists are a force of evil. All their evidence is based upon shoddy models and manipulated data-- like the 'hockey stick'.
Pray for global warming, because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate. In the 80's, when studying Quaternary Paleoecology, the consensus was we were heading for a cooling period. We still are. And the sun is now in a dormant phase. I ask again... what global warming? It is a religion of the semi-literate masses, pure and simple.
An earlier post asked about evidence showing flora & fauna that have been indigenous to southern climates now moving further north. FDR was unable to explain this. FDR appears to be clinging to one data sample and predicating his views on it.
ReplyDeleteHi, please don't dissolve the Fed. I don't want to go back to Princeton. Love, Ben
ReplyDeleteI LOVE the shot of Vegas!
ReplyDeleteFDR - you and your chums are, I think, close to bringing Faith into your paranoia.
ReplyDeleteI am certain that if they said it was cooling, you would say it was warming. No one is right 100%, and on this, you are wrong. Any localized cooling can be attributed to, what I think you would call, a "bear rally".
Every fundamental shows macro warming. Yes, the scientific community, which is not in any way part of a conspiracy theory and who live by the way of the scientific principle, are very aware of the presence of the sun, and it is, as far as can be, factored into their models. They are more concerned with the atmosphere, which is thick, and without which we would have no weather. Anyone who has been in a greenhouse, knows that the heat comes from the sun, AND, the artificial atmosphere of glass surrounding them.
I am now in complete shock at April's implosion towards conspiracy nonsense, and the site is moving in a direction of the ridiculous.
I now think gold and silver are not too bad an option. Your views may be indeed that of someone who is paranoid and believes the boogie man is out to get us. I guess the internet is something so powerful, that it needs to be handled with care.
"I am now in complete shock at April's implosion towards conspiracy nonsense..."
ReplyDeleteYou don't think global warming is a conspiracy? Then how do you explain the following?
1) Al Gore is the main spokesman and he's never been on the truthful side of anything.
2) Warming on other planets as we warmed
3) Junior high science used to say (no telling what it says now) that when a liquid with gas in it heated, it would release the gas quickly. Hence, heating causes high CO2, not vice versa. Think beer can in the sun...goes flat quickly. Same with the oceans.
4) Tons of scientists who don't agree with it.
I could type on and on, but you might as well start with those four.
"I am certain that if they said it was cooling, you would say it was warming."
ReplyDeleteWell they DID say is was cooling and it WAS warming, but that was in the mid 1970s. Then they started saying it was warming and shortly thereafter, it started cooling. Look it up. You can debate what will happen in the future, but the past is in the books.
Please FDR, for the newbee & lay people on here, can you explain this in a little more detail
ReplyDeleteFDR quoted
"If you think gold is going to become more valuable, as I do, than you should short the dollar price".
Someone will kill you for a 1 oz gold piece at $50/oz, while no one cares about gold at 1000/oz.
CO2 is good for plants and humans. Plants use CO2 to create their food and turn it into Oxygen which we as humans need. The air quality prior to "all these vehicles" probably was not as good. Drive away from the city and pay attention to the greenery. The further away from the city you drive,, the less green foliage will be. People need to stop pretending that facts don't matter
ReplyDeleteFDR still clings to one data point for which he refuses to provide sourcing. FDR has repeatedly failed to answer the quite reasonable and legitimate question about plant and animal life that is now growing and thriving in cooler (northern) latitudes. Instead of responding to a question of scientific merit, FDR opts to reveal his political bias by attacking a washed up politician. Like a broken watch that is correct at least twice a day, FDR has occasionally made a good market call; but somehow thinks this short and inconclusive record (sort of like his short and inconclusive observations on climate, in fact) somehow qualify him to comment on the larger issues of the day. Call me...Mo Green.
ReplyDeleteIts a deflationary argument on the gold short. As deflation grows the physical debt notes we refer to as US dollars will grow in value and purchasing power as fake (credit based money that really doesn't physically exist) evaporates as loans are defaulted on and that fake money evaporates from the system. The result is ever rarer physical US dollars gaining in value strongly offsetting a century of inflation(US dollar currency devaluation). As dollars get more valuable(worth more) they will buy more of all things including gold.
ReplyDeletePeople are correct in their belief gold will be more valuable. It will definitely gain in value. But... deflation, by definition, means that the price of gold will fall as the value increases. So all those on main street buying gold expecting the price to go up will be disappointed to find it to instead go down. Its a currency phenomena. No more. No less.
FDR.. Hope I did you justice explaining that right. fwiw
Thanks for all your great inputs here and all you do. I find it very useful.
Mo,
ReplyDeleteWhat FDR usually does is ignore red herring type questions so as to avoid meaningless off tangent discussions. You can ask an irrelevant question until you are blue in the face but that is not gaurenteed to get you an answer.
As far as whether plants have moved north or south or east or west or whatever. At the end of the day "green" is entirely a man made propoganda campaign which will enrichen a hand full of elites beyond their wildest dreams while screwing the rest of us terribly with stupid liberal taxes.
This is not and never has been about what is really happening in nature and whether man is the cause of climate change and weather patterns.
This has always been and will always be about GE and other global companies draining your pockets under many false pretences.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete