Member Info for Madpunter

Why give Carbon credits to polluting companies?

IMHO the schemes will never be linked. There's too much money to be made from the mugs who've been brainwashed by the MMGW scam. Even if it was happening, how can it be justified for the companies producing the most CO2 to still make huge profits and even expand business and the amount they pollute? It's all about money and control and the true environmental problems are overlooked. If the Davos crowd were really concerned about the environment, the first agreement would be banning private jets and private flights. It's never going to happen. Those with the biggest Carbon footprints are dictating to rest of us to change our lifestyle, while they just pay to continue their luxury extravagant Carbon excesses.

The Big Q - How are we going to fund and build a net zero Carbon neutral mine?

How about SOLG protecting the environment at Cascabel by not building a mine. Instead SOLG could charge a load of eco loons protection money equivalent to what SOLG would get from mining?

No doubt you'll suggest that they buy Carbon credits. What if every business buys Carbon credits. There's not enough land to keep planting forests as Carbon sinks. Every environmental solution has a price to pay. You don't get anything for nothing. The previous example of planting trees results in the loss of other habitats. Carbon trading has no central register as far as I know, so it's nothing more than protection money. Who would know if a company sold Carbon credits for planting a forest in some remote spot, then selling the same credits to companies in different countries? Dr Shiva who invented email, states that a $100bn fund was set up to promote MMGW and that Carbon trading will be worth $125tn, information that he sourced in the Wikileaks.

Sorry, it should be Bozi.

Boxi - IMHO the BoD are playing high stakes poker. However, they know what's in their hand and what it's worth. If I remember rightly, SOLG has around $100bn of metal in the ground. Therefore, a 1 - 5% takeover price (typical of non-producing juniors) would be $1- 5bn. At an exchange rate of $1 = £0.80, that equates to £800k - £4bn.

An offer at the current time of 60p per share (roughly 4x the current price) would equate to roughly £1.8bn, which is near the middle of the valuation. IMHO this would get accepted by shareholders and may not attract counter offers. However, next year if the share price dropped by 50% to around 10p, then a similar offer of four times the share price is 40p, which equates to £1.2bn. While this could be accepted by shareholders, as sentiment would be rock bottom by then, IMHO it would start a bidding war, as the major's would see plenty of value. Hence, IMHO if SOLG is to be bought out at a bargain price, the BoD are expecting a bid sooner rather than later.

SharketMare - IMHO the fact that SOLG has 'flagged to the market and any potential buyer when we will run out of cash' is a double edged sword. The side that's positive for SOLG is that any potential buyer will know the clock is ticking before a possible fund raise via another RSA. The big boy's won't want to lose more of the asset to Franco Nevada or other smelters. Plus the clock is also ticking on the exploitation agreement. I know there's 25 years and possibly an extension of another 25 years, but Cascabel might be viable for much longer. It's all future profits for the big boys disappearing all the time that the clock is ticking. Remember the big mining companies think in decades.

There again the Copper and Aluminium figures are based upon 'estimates' lol.

Scrolling down in the article there's another article in the same journal about Copper being added to the critical list by the US. There's a graph (Fig. 3.2), which shows both Copper and Aluminium as critical, but Aluminium is a higher supply risk. Therefore, it's not much of an alternative to Copper.

Dr David Bellamy's series was axed after he called MMGW 'bunkum' and he was ostracized.

Dr Peter Ridd was wrongly sacked as a Great Barrier Reef scientist for disputing that the reef was dying through climate change (He won in court for unfair dismissal).

Professor Susan Crockford was sacked for pointing out that Polar Bear numbers are not declining.

I wonder why scientists are afraid to speak the truth about MMGW?

Quady - Let's just assume for one second that MMGW is actually happening (this is only to show the stupidity of Net Zero). The UK produces about 1% of the World's CO2, while the biggest polluters, China (still building a new coal power stations every three weeks), India (still building and using coal power stations), Russia, Brazil and the US, aren't committed to Net Zero along the same time lines, if any. To meet the UK's requirements, we closed a diesel refinery at Milford Haven. Now we import that diesel from Russia, so that on our balance sheet we're closer to Net Zero. Yet the diesel is still being used, it has to travel further (bigger carbon footprint on the World stage), it costs more and energy security is lost. The increased costs have driven up prices of energy, transport and all goods transported by freight that uses diesel. This increases manufacturing costs and reduces their competitiveness, resulting in more goods imported from places like China. Therefore, an even bigger carbon footprint occurs on the World stage and the UK consumers pay increased prices. IMHO it is totally absurd to expect the biggest countries to copy our stupidity, while it creates an economic advantage for them. All we are doing is bankrupting the poorest people in this country for the virtue signalling elite, who will not change their habits of flying privately and living a luxurious lifestyle of Carbon footprint excess.

It clearly states 15 as the baseline. The IPCC estimates have been consistently wrong, hence the need to change the baseline from 15 to 14 , after the year 2000 figure became 14.62.

CO2 is not dangerous, it's essential for life. Life ends when CO2 drops below 150ppm as plant life dies. 800 - 1200ppm is the desired range. It's why the satellite images show the greening of some desert regions and why crop yield's are increasing.

Http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannPark1996GRL.pdf

Copied from the link that you stated was rubbish. This paper is by Mann and figure 2 shows the 15 degree baseline.

See the previous links.

The past is very relevant. If CO2 levels were multiples of today's levels during ice ages, then there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature. It means that MMGW has a negligible effect on climate change.

Mann and the IPCC used 15 as the baseline until the drop to 14.62. Then they manipulated the figures to state 14, so that the 14.62 shows a rise instead of a fall. Changing the data to match the narrative is not science!

Https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

Plenty of links to where 15 was used in the past in this article.

https://davidturver.substack.com/p/pillars-supporting-net-zero-crumbling

Everyone knew smoking was harmful, so why didn't governments just ban it? Too much revenue from tax, which is also the reason why alcohol doesn't get banned. The elite want to still smoke their cigars and drink fabulous wines and the occasional beer, cider or spirits. It's all about controlling the masses. Everything that's projected today by governments equates to the opposite. Freedom of movement = 15 minute cities and no movement; freedom of speech = cancel culture if just one word offends; and equality = inequality.

Quady - Just look at early IPCC statements or Google 14 is the new 15. Lots of references to the change in the average temperature.

Peer reviewed means nothing. For decades peer reviewed research showed that smoking wasn't harmful. Research Council's are made up of company directors with vested interests. When stopping smoking became a tool to close pubs, the funding came for research on passive smoking. ASH funded a 30 year study, but pulled the plug with 28 months to go, as it proved it wasn't harmful (I don't smoke), and the two scientists, who were very anti-smoking had to go cap in hand to the tabaco industry to get funding to publish their work.

Quady- If the science is right, how come it was wrong by 1°C for decades and had to totally change the methodology based on over 50 computer models. What's the odds for all these models being wrong and all wrong in the same direction?

Explain how the World was much warmer during Mediaeval times and why the levels of CO2 were multiples today's levels during the last few ice ages.

It's simple, there's no correlation between temperature and CO2. It's only linked to enable taxes and control.

I've met many prominent scientists and media personalities and argued my points. Most have eventually asked to see my phone and having made me turn it off and emptied my pockets, they have then admitted that they don't believe in MMGW, but are scared of losing their jobs.

Try debunking the fact that the IPCC and all 50+ computer models, were wrong about the drop in temperature from 15°C to 14.62°C, and that they manipulated the figures decades later to give the results that they wanted. This was what made me leave Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. and why the co-founder of Greenpeace left ( someone who put his life on the line for the environment, when driving a RIB in the way of the French Navy's guns, when they tried to sink the Rainbow Warrior).

Scientists are scared of losing their jobs, as anyone who speaks out gets cancelled, often with a gagging order.

Try reading Dark Winter by Casey, an ex- NASA scientist, who explains how the temperature increases and decreases on other planets in our solar system, at the same time as on the Earth. Therefore, when there's more solar radiation all the planets get warmer and when there's less they all get cooler.

Everytime.