We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
You are never in a million years going to convince a climate change denier through scientific facts and consensus, as these are entities, in their worldview, controlled by governments. And the argument re data can easily be countered. we have around 200 years of pretty accurate data. Before that, the data is extrapolated and inferred through geology. Therefore we can only create models. Pretty darn accurate models, yes. but models none the less, and we are always discovering new things and adjusting our models.
I dont believe all climate deniers are stupid, so calling them stupid completely closes dialogue. just misinformed and have interpreted things wrong. A little knowledge is dangerous ect ect. I dont need convincing on the overwhelming scientific evidence to support the theory that humans are causing climate change (note 1984 i said theory)...and to be fair, and lets be strictly scientific, it is not 100% certain by definition, but its as close to certain as we can get without actually letting the predictions of inaction to play out. But thats the rub...something that is not 100% certain can always be interpreted as uncertain despite the fact of being as humanly certain as we can get without the event taking place.
Its important therefore to find middle ground. Yes, it is not 100% certain that humans are causing climate change. But then lets discuss what 100% certain actually means. Lets discuss irrefutable trends (assuming you are talking to a rational person) and then lets discuss in the face of probability, the risk of doing nothing. The asteroid analogy is valid.
Every climate denier that begins to see reason is a victory.
Triumph1 to say the data only goes back 200 years is to misunderstand the science.
Yes we only have a couple of Hundred years of data, but we have the geological record, we have various forms of dating that can work out what the co2 was in relation to the temperature.
You have to remember that when co2 in the past was higher, methane and other green house gases was lower.
Hence the man made element.
The rise of global temperature is a fact that is backed up by the science.
Don't be taken in by the likes of Slug, who is by far the most unintelligent poster on here.
He cannot even understand basic maths and science.
Or he just remains wilfully ignorant and only gets his opinions off the internet that suits his own world view.
The science is solid.
To be clear, you expect is to believe you have a science degree and you didn't know that temperature measures kinetic energy of particles, you think car engines can 'run on water ' and the other day you confused carbon (the element) with carbon dioxide (the compound) in a fashion very similar to a terrible climate conspiracy theory website that reads like it was written by an illiterate toddler.
But pray tell, which esteemed institution let you graduate? And what science did you study? Did your thesis involve the excretions of male bovines?!
Genuinely the funniest attempt at being intelligent you've made so far, and there's a long list of you waving your tiddler about for attention
This nearly made me fall off my chair laughing. Where's your science degree from, slug?! Didn't know the early learning centre had degree awarding powers? What year did you graduate?! Absolutely hilarious.
Seriously, a 2 minute Google will teach you everything you need to know about conspiracy theories and climate. Lots of agencies have been good enough to take the time to correct the nonsense you're posting here. Rather than embarrassing yourself, why not educate yourself? The data is of excellent quality, you don't need to worry about that, and the trend it shows is beyond discussion.
I see what you are saying 1984. Our data only goes back a couple of hundred years, thermometer accuracy, natural earth weather cycles over geological timescales ect ect we cant possibly understand all that, right?....so are humans that arrogant to think that we can impact weather on a global scale?
Its all about risk. Are humans causing global warming? On the balance of probability yes. Its too much of a coincidence that average global temperatures are increasing (and they definitely are) vs our output.
Hey, maybe you are right. Its not caused by humans. But the question is, do you want to take that risk? The evidence produced already is more than enough to warrant a change in our behaviours. Only because it is not 100% fact that humans are not causing global warming, doesnt mean that we do nothing until it becomes 100%. Darn, i would say 50% is good enough! If we wait for 100%, it is already too late!
If there was 50% chance of an asteriod the size of the Chicxulub hitting earth, what would you do? Deny until it became 100% certain??? Because 100% certain is the moment of impact....BOOM
Chill Red. You’ve been banging the same top up/auto bots/copper price/imminent bid drums for years. We will all be aware when something tangible happens here, so creaming yourself daily for years on end on no news is becoming ever so slightly tiresome.
Of course the notion of a global average temperature is meaningless. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. The earth and its atmosphere is large and diverse, no single location is meaningfully average.
Add to that that our temperature data is imprecise, endlessly fiddled with and adjusted and comes from totally arbitrary locations. Of course it’s hot at the end of a runway where fighter jets take off. We also have nothing meaningful to compare it to such as accurate temperature data from a thousand, ten thousand or a million years ago.
Most readings are done in populated areas,
Much of the earth isn’t populated at all. It is implausible to characterise earths temperature in single average number, especially when we don’t really know what that number is today let alone millions of years ago.
Silly fools are taken in by mere use of the word “science” as if that’s a contract signed and sealed that it must be right. Whilst the woketards continue to deify “clever scientists”….realise that they are just people. People who went to uni and studied science degrees, exactly as I did.
Wtf just happened? Up 11% then we close where we started, sub 7p.
Well, at least red and the happy clappers are happy with the management and the way they are spending our cash
So you don't understand averages. Saying you do and then proving you don't by failing to appreciate what average global temperatures can tell us is embarrassing. Do you think the data used to track climate problems is the same idea as your 'take an average of two days points' idea? I can explain if you need me to?
I can't spend what I do make. No need to trade here 👍
Much more exciting would be some official company updates...
Not true at all. Try getting L2 feed and then learn how to use it
Quite depressing when there is excitement about a 700k trade = £50k! Remember when that trade was more like £250k.
Equally likely, could have been a worked sell which has dragged the price back from the 7.7p highs.
Hits a high of 7.84 then trashed by Autobots...again...
Of course I understand how averages work, they are sometimes just meaningless as the case with some kind of global average temperature. It means nothing whatsoever but is used as a tool to fool and terrify the gullible and stupid.
Speaking of which….why didn’t you sell out and make some money? I don’t need more money either but what’s the harm in having extra?
I hold at any one time a main long position and multiple longs and shorts. As you’ll see this morning I called it toppy and closed and went short and of course I was right. Tiny gains as you call them are magnified when spread betting. Your punt per pip is in your own control.
Wouldn’t it be better to make some more loot in your spare time rather than lecturing about the weather and insulting others?
Not understanding how averages work is all we need to know about you, slug. Can you, dispassionately, see the difference between your example and the data used to monitor climate change by actual, intelligent scientists? If you can't see the difference there really is no helping you- you're too far down the conspiracy nut job rabbit hole.
I see I was right about today's 'rally'. Did I sell out last week and get back in at a lower price today? No. Because I don't need the money, I own plenty of stock and I can wait here whilst other investments make money. Anyone claiming to predict short term trends in this stock is a liar or fantasist (and these boards have plenty of both). Longer term, I think we'll sell eventually and I'll be in when we do.
Are you in or out, slug? Did you see the current massive drop in sp happening and sell up your entire holding? Or did you short? When do you intend to get back in? Or are you trading for tiny gains around the margin (and you'll claim to have bought in at 6.8p, selling at 7.4p?)
700k buy. Yummy
Give it a rest red, you're amongst some who are better than you in this game.
*whole world before you start Mavis
Almost back to unchanged. Amazing. Som many AT's on this stock at the moment and almost zero o trades. It's bonkers. Something afoot for sure.
Temperature at one position at one time is temperature there and then. Averaging out temperatures is totally meaningless
If it is 20C in Torquay and 10C is Inverness; the average is not 15C that doesn’t mean it’s 15C half way between the two
You’ll notice they went looking for weather porn in Spain last summer because it was bloody freezing here. That’s what they do, pick and choose numbers to push the agenda they’ve got
If only the who world wasn’t so damned stupid, it’d never work
Fancy thinking temperature doesn't measure anything, or being taken in by a prank as old the hills about an engine that runs on water...
My strategy is working fine thanks, slug. How is your 'desperately hope for mews' strategy going? Got any bites yet? We seem to be down at sub-10p levels soy guess is you are struggling?
Usual stateside or post 1.30pm seller arrives again in an apparent flap and sets the bots off.
The shareprice has been showing keenness to break out of the 7p ranges yet the 'magic manipulative hand' appears and slaps it back down. It's become so obvious now it has to be a full on buy signal for many!
Old droopy drawers complained to teacher again?
Fancy thinking a share has further to fall and not selling any long positions you have 🤪🤪🤪
And the Quote...at 7.68, is above the Bid Offer of 7.59/7.65...
Going up...?
High for the day...
42,806 bought at 7.84 at 10.52...quote was 7.60/7.90.
I'm firmly bid 7.5612 for 400k...