The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
As a retired professional engineer in the oil industry I would advise anyone who is a doubter to apply simple risk analysis tools to assess the risk of global warming. In risk analysis we assess the 'probability' of an event and the 'consequence' and put these into a matrix. If something is low probability and low consequence we can ignore it, if something is high probability low consequence we should at least do something, if something is high probability high consequence we need to do something right now, if something is very low probability but extreme consequence we can't just ignore it, we have to do something, etc etc.
Now for global warming the consequence would be extreme if it does actually happen, so to get the perceived risk to you personally you apply your own personal opinion of the probability that global warming is happening. Since the consequence is extreme, even if you think the probability is negligible you still need to do something, not just ignore it, because the risk is not nil. So if you have any logic left in your minds you really cannot ignore it.
The fact is carbon in the atmosphere is causing the planet to heat up, we know we are chopping down trees and reducing one of the planets many carbon capture abilities. As well as that we are also burning fossil fuels releasing more carbon into the atmosphere exacerbating the problem.
Changes that happen to a planet quickly very rarely take a couple of hundred years it’s over millennia. Humans caused this and need to take responsibility.
The debate yesterday should of been ways of how to highlight the Victoria battery fire to the world's media and all the dangers these installations bring.
Finny how this clmate dude landed and controlled another narrative.
Sorry Spedders but the evidence for human activity being a dominant influence on the current rapid rise in global atmospheric temperatures is overwhelming. That is why there is general agreement among the scientific community. Your opening sentence is completely wrong.
I believe that it is the height of human conceit to believe that contrary to the evidence of scientific knowledge that humankind, firstly, is responsible for the warming of the planet which appears to be occurring, and, secondly, that by a change in our behaviours we can reduce the warming by a significant amount.
The facts are that we have had global warmings and coolings lasting for decades over recorded history. There is nothing to suggest that this has not gone on before records began. We do not yet understand why this has happened, so we do not know the mechanics involved. However no one eems to mention that the 'gas' that has the largest effect on global atmospheric temperature is water vapour, rather than carbon dioxide. It is probably just because the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere is not currently historically measurable that it is not discussed. However the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is most unlikely to be the most significant indicator, and human contribution to this is not yet agreed, it seems the oceans may well be contributing much more.
We are now being sold a story which has many scientists' support (because many scientists need funding to carry out their research) and the results of that research support the story that the funders of the research are telling (which is of course a great surprise because we all know that you shoukd always follow the mohey to find the answer) The story has great traction and is influencing global investment decisions, so nobody wants to hear any contradictory opinion ns.
All my own opinion, and DYOR as always - and I believe BMN has a great future in supporting the story.
I would welcome any research you have done that contradicts the models linking warming to increasing CO2 levels. There is now widespread acceptance within the global scientific community of the link between climate change and atmospheric CO2 levels. There will always be sceptics but the evidence is now overwhelming.
Wyloe that is an interesting opinion but it does run counter to the evidence.
One thing that science has become very good at is data gathering. The data tells us that global average temperatures have increased by about 1C over the last 100 years. The question is just how does that compare with historical global temperature changes.
A useful comparison would be with the period following the last ice age which was at its peak about 18,000 years ago. At that time global average temperatures were about 4C or 5C cooler than today.
Over the next 8,000 years or so temperatures rose causing extensive melting of ice and a rise in sea level of about 100 m, reaching present sea level about 6,000 years ago. So the 4C or 5C rise in temperature that caused this warming and a dramatic rise in sea level could be equated to a rise of about 1/2C (half a degree C) per 1,000 years.
There is no argument that this rise was due to natural causes and interestingly CO2 concentrations over this period accurately track the temperature changes. It does demonstrate a link between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature.
No doubt those that share your opinion would claim therefore that the current warming is due to natural processes. OK so exactly what are the natural causes that over the last 100 years have led to a rate of warming approximately 20 times faster than during the period following the last ice age (1C per 100 years v 0.05C per 100 years). Remember that we are very good at data gathering yet we cannot identify natural causes that have caused this very fast rate of warming.
At the same time CO2 within the atmosphere has risen quite sharply, much of this due to gases emitted during the Industrial Age and in particular the last 100 years. Once again we see the link between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature, only this time the source of this rise in CO2 is human activity.
I respect your opinion as a climate change sceptic but I must point out that the huge amount of data now gathered and the models derived from this certainly point to increasing temperatures driven by rising levels of so called greenhouse gases.
You are correct to point out that atmospheric temperatures do vary over time. However the very big problem that the sceptics have to explain is the very rapid rise this time, unprecedented in previous warming periods, and the correlation between warming and CO2 levels. Any natural process powerful enough to drive warming at the pace we are now seeing would be very obvious and easily measurable. And yet none have been identified. At the same time science explains the warming as being linked to CO2 levels and the mechanisms are well understood.
(To be continued)
What a load of rubbish,, Firstly let me say I neither said that man was not causing pollution and I am against the various harms that man is causing in the air, sea etc. However I do not accept that man can change the temperature of the earth, for thousands of years the earth has changed from ice age to tropical over and over again. To believe that we have the ability to adjust the climate through CO2 emissions is nothing short of madness. People are being lead a merry dance coupled with blackmail to engage in an experiment to create a false economy which in my opinion is destined to fail badly. How on earth will we provide the amount of energy required to power electric cars, heating pumps, etc. I live close to a cable that supplies us power from Norway in the present day to prevent the light going out during peak periods But don’t take my unqualified word for it, open your eyes and ears and dig deeper than national broadcasts and soon you will discover real facts.
Watch to the end of just one and there is many claiming the same, eminent scientists who spent his whole life on this subject.
https://youtu.be/ViY2J3LPgN4
I used to work in a university biochemistry department as a technician in my younger days. One of the gases I was trying to detract from a bacterial culture was carbon dioxide. The instrument for detecting carbon dioxide relies on the fact that it absorbs infra red light like crazy. Minute amounts absorb infra red and this registers in the instrument telling you what you have. The CO2 absorbs the infra red turning it into heat which is why we have global warming. Simple physics. End of.
Kyloe , complete *******.
Irrespective of whether you believe we caused the Earth to start overheating (coincidently began around the start of the Industrial Age - what are the chances of that happening) if there are steps we can take to mitigate the effects and potentially bring the climate back into a more regulated state where crops won’t be burnt or die from drought or be washed away by floods then I think we should at least try.
Ky. OMG. There really ARE people as stupid as you out there?
@Kyloe, the "Tripe post of the Day Award", goes to you mate! You honestly believe that human intervention over the last 150 years, (concentrated), will have no effect on the Eco-system??... Then mate you're completely blind, and not in touch with the science.
Man is upsetting the balance and the Earth will correct the matter, whether it be floods/storms or fires... We're fighting a battle with a powerful adversary... and we need to know how to put away the big heads and learn how to back down, before it comes to a point of no return.
In this day and age I cannot believe you would write something like that. So you are basically saying that all the damage we are doing around the world has no effect on the climate, and what about our health?
I despair with idiocy!
Whilst it is true that there are natural cycles that heat and cool the planet, it is indisputable that humans are not massively having an impact on eco-systems many of which have a significant effect on climate dynamics
I despair that honest scientific debate is absolutely stifled, where crackpot political agenda's making no economic, energy or practical sense are growing, but we cannot and should not ignore that the way we operate on the planet need to radically change.
The 'Electrification' agenda is just one of many aspects and we (at least many here) have been smart enough to recognise that industrial level electrical storage has but two realistic options right now. One catches fire and has some dubious lifecycle claims and the other is Vanadium based. Our investment is in a place that impacts very significantly the 'carbon agenda', be it in needing less steel and the energy that takes or be it in VFRB's that have 25+ year multi daily cycle capability and don't catch fire.
So yes, I am looking for a very healthy return, yes I am looking to catch the big wave, but also I can see that we humans need to do a lot better.
The oil exec was a dick to say what he did...
There are other fringe websites for climate change denialists, flat earthists etc. Not sure why you would post crackpot theories on this one.
It's cardon dioxide, not monoxide.
At last a truthful CEO hopefully many more will dismiss this carbon monoxide global warming nonsense. The earth has and always will vary in temperature and anybody with common sense can see that 0.04% carbon of which scientists claim 0.03% is natural and man is responsible for 0.01% will make no difference to the climate. It’s a rouse to create what they call the 4th generation of economics. Many scientists have been silenced and funding removed therefore forcing wrongful beliefs. Which is a very worrying situation and other signs which are emerging today of media censorship preventing people speaking the truth. My apologies for going off topic but after reading article felt I had to make comment no mater how contested it will be.