Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
All those left wingers like George Soros and Bill Gates.
Ship . ---I come onto this board to gain information about solg , not listen to listen to socialist lectures , i get enough of that from the bbc . Please , give it a rest .
Again .... can we move on please
When people suggest that the Ecuadorian people do not deserve any consideration it has to be challenged.
To be fair Ship , it’s simply a matter of differing opinions / motivations ...... for the sake of all others shouldn’t you leave it at that ?
Cleaning up is one thing. Doing the job properly and having respect for Ecuador and its people is where this discussion all stared. There is one school of thought that it's OK to do anything to achieve the end goal. Hopefully discussions like this will at least make people consider the impact their investments can make. It can be positive or negative.
Not disagreeing with environmental issues ship ,am all for cleaning up our environment and our seas as am a fisherman but let's keep the board related to solg exploration
This board has been posting the same things day after day for years there is occasionally some relevant information amongst the repetitive prosaic posts. Sustainability is directly related to solgolds working principal and is therefore relevant.
No its fine discussing these issues but ,this is solg a explorer we want to talk about solg not the end of the world ship.
Whys that cookie? Is the world about to end?
Last chance to stop talking about non related subjects guys ....
I have answered your questions, will now return to the subject of Solg. 800 ppm for plants. Laughable lots of plants. Just a planet with no human activity.
Use the other board.
Try reading point 4 again.
4) Increased temperatures on the planet will increase farming yields and in some parts of the globe a second or even a third crop each year becomes possible (see the first link below).
However, market gardener's pump CO2 into greenhouses, as 800ppm is the ideal level for plants to flourish.
Lastly point 5, global cooling will lower yields in farming. Let's explore how temperatures are measured to try to explain this age old myth. Starting by remembering we are talking about the climate, and not just CO2. NASA collects data, from space on climate. But this is not enough. We must use this as a baseline, and use datasets, from weather stations all round the world. Now the problem with this is population growth, over the last 150 years. We are not comparing like with like. So for example New York, which was called New Amsterdam. Had a fraction of the population it had today, and so the degree of localised heating was less. But the Sahara desert is the same. So we invoke localised cooling and heating algorythums to take this into account. So when you say that cooling with harm crops. Yes that's true if you try to grow crops in the North pole. But plant life evolves as we do, to it's environment, and if it gets a shock, because of drastic temperature rise or fall, this will have an impact. Lastly I would say, read the science. Inform yourself of the real reasons. Anyone can say what about this. All the arguments that you have given are tangential and not true. I personally have never been one for conspiracy theories. I wish you well on your reading.
No your misunderstanding the science. CO2 that is from man's burning of fossil fuels is no different to CO2 from natural sources. It is the same chemical with the same physical properties. It has never correlated with temperature. You can't isolate the CO2 temperature relation for the last 150 years just because with some manipulation of data it comes close to a match.
Have you even watched any of the videos by Dr Patrick Moore or Dr Will Happer?
Furthermore, ByronBayGold is right, if you want to reply use the link that I provided at the bottom of my 00:57 post and leave this bb for posts about SOLG.
BBG, agreed. This has become very tiresome.
Point 4, raised CO2 levels will increase farming yields. No it won't. Although CO2 is necessary for plant life. We are talking about the climate. This is about much more than CO2. I often get frustrated with the simplicity that our media and green parties around the world, simplify this information. An important point to make here. People talk about CO2 and a component of CO2 equivalency . This often confused the argument, as it's equivalent, is a CO2 number, that's made up of all green house gases, and is not a true representation. CO2 rises above 450 parts per million, will seriously destroy large parts of our agriculture, as hard to grow crops in the desert. Remember the nutrients and composition of our soil, is part of the ecosystem.
Can we move on....
Madpunter, that's my point. You are misunderstanding the science. The graphs for hundreds of millions of years, are irrelavant, No human activity then and the planets climate vastly different then. We are talking about the man made component. This is not disputed, as we can clearly observe this. The reason we use datasets from the last 150 years, is that this takes into account the lag and cooralation in temp rise and CO2. It's important we concentrate on the man made part, and not try to confuse the data, by saying , what about CO2, before man existed. If anything it again shows our impact on the planet.
On your third point that CO2, is not a pollutant. No one says it is. However our climate, although self regulating, can only self regulate, when not stress tested to distraction. The world will continue, Humanity will as well. However, large parts of the world will be uninhabitable, we will poison our oceans, and the soil will be unable to substain many types of crops. These facts are not in dispute. I refer you to what a fact is. It is an observation that is directly or indirectly observed.
The graph is for a period of hundreds of millions of years and CO2 has never correlated. Temperature increases or decreases were never in sync with CO2, therefore, it doesn't matter on the source of the CO2.
Your next point that there is no coronation between CO2, and global warming, is just plain wrong. Let me expand. What we are talking about, is a relationship, between the man made part of CO2. Remember we are talking about the man made part. Go look at NOAA data. This is the most accurate data anywhere on climate change, and it's what the IPCC use to constantly update world climate models, and provide us with the datasets going forward. Yes that's right, we make new datasets, from existing datasets, as this stuff is complicated, and we have to drill down and use a level of granularity, that just wasn't possible even 5 years ago. HPC is making this possible. NOAA data shows a direct relationship between CO2 and man made climate change, with the appropriate lag.
Quady - Here's another link for you, which highlights why the data can be disputed, when the mean global temperature becomes 14 degrees Celcius, because the previous 15 degrees Celcius didn't produce the required increase in temperature. Around the same time the UHI was being manipulated to produce the required data.
Ask yourself why the IPCC had to hide the Emails about discrediting the Medieval Warm Period?
It's a fact that the 'Hockey Stick Graph' is based upon one species of tree, that only grows in one place on the Earth, with a very specific micro-climate. Hardly the basis for good science.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
On the 31,000 scientists, this was not their finest hour. Many scientists are also religious, particularly in the USA. The question over getting funding in the USA, has always been contentious. However, much better these days. I have already mentioned people like Behe, but now will mention institutions like the Templeton institute. These are so called scientific organisations setup to prove the Bible. They are some of the best funded institutions in the USA. Lots of scientists work for them on good salaries. To my mind this is not science. Even one scientist from NASA, when to the above institution.
Good morning Madpunter, lot to answer here, but let's have a go. Yes playing with percentages is not always honest. When you say thousands of scientists, that is less than 3%. Also you can be a scientist and not working in the climate change arena. The science you study has to be in a relevant field. It's the same distinction between fact and theory. A fact is an observation, that is directly or indirectly observed. A scientific theory, is a collection of all relevant facts, that is disputed by none. That's the important part. Climate change stands because of all it's observations cannot be disputed. I will answer each of your other points in seperate posts, so as to add detail and content.