Investment and other financial matters

Archive for October, 2010

Don't Trust Wacko Wikipedia Zealots

Lawrence Solomon

April 26, 2008

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/26…

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in
Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his
biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. "Do you really believe
in Martians?" I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington
event. The answer was "No."

Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that
Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is
designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by
painting him as a political partisan and someone who "is best known as
president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate
change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to
the conservative journal NewsMax."

Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer
is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National
Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation
for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a
commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
research on particle clouds; and the recipient of  a U.S. Department of
Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather
satellites.

He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of
major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with
V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the
design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship
of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation
in the earth’s magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring
current.

Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been
available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions
don’t last long, however – often just minutes – before the honest
accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site.
Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase
any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters
by the dozens have been likewise demeaned – to check for yourself, just
look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or
organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming
skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected
from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed.

This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had
arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific
database questioned the UN view of climate change. To bolster her
standing, those who troll for Wikipedia have done their best to dress up
her CV – they note that she won a National Science Foundation’s Young
Investigator Award in 1994, that she has been a consultant for various
government agencies, and that in July she will become provost of an
as-yet unnamed college of the University of California, San Diego. While
these accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at, she is no Fred Singer.

In any event, her Wikipedia page is not really about her but her study,
which has been thoroughly discredited by credible journalists and
scientists. To suppress these critiques, the trollers apply Wikipedia’s
bewildering rules as to what can and can’t appear, and when the rules
are inadequate, the trollers make up new ones on the fly.

Several weeks ago, as I described in an earlier column, I attempted to
correct passages on the Oreskes page that would lead readers to think
her study had been vindicated and also to think that U.K. scientist
Benny Peiser, one of her critics, had abjectly withdrawn his criticisms.
Wikipedia’s rules thwarted me, used to revert my corrections, again and
again. Those who came before me in attempting to make corrections, and,
I would find out, those who came after, were similarly thwarted.

Wikipedia refused to accept Peiser’s critique, or his interpretation of
his own views, or an account of his views that he had provided to me, or
an account of his views published in a peer-reviewed journal, or an
account of his views published in The Wall Street Journal, or an account
of his views published by the U.S. Senate committee on environment and
public works.

Instead, the Wikipedia trollers insisted that all of the above sources
were disqualified or irrelevant under Wikipedia rules, and that the
trollers’ own understanding of Peiser’s views trumped all others.

Just as the trollers insist on characterizing Fred Singer as believing
in Martians. When it is the Wickipedian trollers who are from Mars.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (6)

Mythical Global Warming Doesn't Even Rate A Mention With Democrat Voters

Lawrence Solomon

March 25, 2008

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/03/25…

Public support for global warming, by some measures, is overwhelming. By
other measures, public support more resembles lip-service. As, for
example, when the public is asked to put its money where it’s mouth is.

In a public opinion poll last week of registered U.S. voters, only one
in six were willing to pay an extra 50 cents a gallon to stave off
global warming and almost half were unwilling to pay so much as a penny.

In a Washington Post-ABC poll last November, Democratic voters were
asked: What is the single most important issue in your choice for the
Democratic candidate for president? Top of the list was "Iraq/War in
Iraq," the pick of 33% of responders. "Health care" came second at 26%,
followed by "Economy/Jobs" at 10% and "Ethics/Honesty/Corruption in
government" at 5%. Next came "Education" at 3%, "Environment" at 2%,
"Foreign policy" at 2%, "Immigration/Illegal immigration at 2%,
"Energy/Ethanol" at 1%, Terrorism/National security" at 1%. Also at 1%
were "Abortion", "Morals/Family values," Federal budget deficit" and
"Social Security." As for "Global warming," it came in with an "*",
denoting less that one half of one percent.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Re: WIKIPEDIA: AGW style

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp…@adnc.com> wrote in message

news:3fbb696a-fc82-4be5-a025-5b0eb61e4506@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com…
On Apr 28, 8:57 am, "James" <kingko…@iglou.com> wrote:
> Monday, April 28, 2008
> Wikipedia bias

Now an encyclopedia is biased against you, James?
What’s next, a dictionary?
To the truly paranoid, even reality is a conspiracy.
***********************

ROTFLMAO
Coppcock, you are hilarious!!!!!

Don’t Trust Wacko Wikipedia Zealots

Lawrence Solomon

April 26, 2008

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/26…

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in
Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his
biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. "Do you really believe
in Martians?" I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington
event. The answer was "No."

Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that
Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is
designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by
painting him as a political partisan and someone who "is best known as
president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate
change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to
the conservative journal NewsMax."

Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer
is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National
Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation
for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a
commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
research on particle clouds; and the recipient of  a U.S. Department of
Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather
satellites.

He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of
major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with
V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the
design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship
of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation
in the earth’s magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring
current.

Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been
available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions
don’t last long, however – often just minutes – before the honest
accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site.
Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase
any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters
by the dozens have been likewise demeaned – to check for yourself, just
look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or
organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming
skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected
from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed.

This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had
arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific
database questioned the UN view of climate change. To bolster her
standing, those who troll for Wikipedia have done their best to dress up
her CV – they note that she won a National Science Foundation’s Young
Investigator Award in 1994, that she has been a consultant for various
government agencies, and that in July she will become provost of an
as-yet unnamed college of the University of California, San Diego. While
these accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at, she is no Fred Singer.

In any event, her Wikipedia page is not really about her but her study,
which has been thoroughly discredited by credible journalists and
scientists. To suppress these critiques, the trollers apply Wikipedia’s
bewildering rules as to what can and can’t appear, and when the rules
are inadequate, the trollers make up new ones on the fly.

Several weeks ago, as I described in an earlier column, I attempted to
correct passages on the Oreskes page that would lead readers to think
her study had been vindicated and also to think that U.K. scientist
Benny Peiser, one of her critics, had abjectly withdrawn his criticisms.
Wikipedia’s rules thwarted me, used to revert my corrections, again and
again. Those who came before me in attempting to make corrections, and,
I would find out, those who came after, were similarly thwarted.

Wikipedia refused to accept Peiser’s critique, or his interpretation of
his own views, or an account of his views that he had provided to me, or
an account of his views published in a peer-reviewed journal, or an
account of his views published in The Wall Street Journal, or an account
of his views published by the U.S. Senate committee on environment and
public works.

Instead, the Wikipedia trollers insisted that all of the above sources
were disqualified or irrelevant under Wikipedia rules, and that the
trollers’ own understanding of Peiser’s views trumped all others.

Just as the trollers insist on characterizing Fred Singer as believing
in Martians. When it is the Wickipedian trollers who are from Mars.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman’s book
Capitalism

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (6)

Re: Scientist says New Zealand's biggest glacier shrinking

"Dan Luke" <t1…@dingdongsouth.net> wrote in message

news:mgoc149lo2m4543sps0f1rh3c3e6mo6rk8@4ax.com…

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:46:31 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar  wrote:
>>And how’s the Antarctic doing?
> Funny you should ask, Mo’:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080325-antarctica-pho…

ROTFLMAO
Global scaremongering at its best!!!

Now for some reality …
The Antarctic is doing very, very well in refusing to follow the AGW
claptrap script!!!

Some perspective On Hyped Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

Posted by jennifer

March 26, 2008

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002869.html

There is an Australian e-journal that is popular with many
government-types called crikey.com.au. Today the lead story began,

"A chunk of ice seven times the size of Manhattan (as big as the Isle of
Man if you prefer a more Anglo-centric news source) is hanging by a
thread to the main, still-frozen body of the western Antarctic.
Satellite images are showing the rapid disintegration of a 41km x 2.5km
ice chunk, a part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf that has been there for
hundreds, maybe 1,500 years. It is happening, the scientific consensus
seems to be, because the seas are getting warmer. It’s that greenhouse
thing.

So, what to do? Blame China? No, we need to take individual
responsibility. Wait on the Garnaut report? No, too little too late. We
must act now … of course! Let’s turn some lights off on Saturday. For
an hour. That’ll fix it. Meanwhile, click on the image below to watch a
video of what Earth Hour is up against." [end of quote]

Anyway, that’s about as clever as it gets even from the so-called
alternative media and the story is much the same in The Australian.

Then of course there are the blogs, including some which actually
provide data and background information to put the collapse of the
icesheet in some context:

"In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and
most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica
into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a
tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic
activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979…

"The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the
current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small
portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far,
like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter
is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is
running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of
last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already
approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements
began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern
Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the
others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely
going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false
impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear."

Read the complete blog post and check out meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo
graphs at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (17)

Near Record Cold Nights For Southeast Australia

Brett Dutschke

April 28, 2008

Temperatures will plummet to near-record levels across the southeast
during the next few nights, according to weatherzone.com.au.

It will get colder than in any April in the last nine years over a large
area.

Places with the best chance to break low-minimum records by the morning
are in northern parts of South Australia and Victoria and in New South
Wales and southern Queensland.

On the Gold Coast it may get as cold as 10 degrees by sunrise, which
will make it the coldest April night in 14 years of records.

Cobar has a forecast minimum of just 2 degrees, potentially breaking a
46-year-old April record.

Just south of the NSW border Echuca will get very close to its 127-year
record for April of 0.6 degrees. In Echuca’s history, the 10th of May is
the earliest recorded sub-zero temperature for the year.

Some places will be at their coldest on Wednesday morning after cloud
clears

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman’s book
Capitalism

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

Biting Winds And Snow For Central NSW Australia

Brett Dutschke

April 28, 2008

http://weather.news.com.au/breakingweather.jsp?site=newscomau

Snow has been falling in the Blue Mountains amidst bitterly cold winds,
and it’s only April.

The snow has even been heavy on the western side of the Blue Mountains
where it settled on the ground. Further south there has been about 15 to
30 centimetres worth on the Alps.

Cold winds responsible for this snow are also generating a significant
chill.

Just after one o’clock this afternoon the temperature at Mount Boyce
near Katoomba was just 2 degrees and the wind chill was minus four
degrees. At about the same time it was only 4 degrees at Goulburn with a
wind chill of minus 1. Goulburn’s average maximum in April is 19.

This cold outbreak is a result of the strongest front since last winter.
Fronts of this strength normally don’t arrive until at least May, so
some are experiencing their coldest April day.

Wellington only reached 13 degrees, breaking a 90-year April record.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

Get The TRUE Facts At
 http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
 http://www.warwickhughes.com/

"…and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences

"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen

[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Exposing The Climate Change Agenda

Press Release: NZ Centre For Political Research

Dr Muriel Newman

11 April 2008

http://www.scoop.co.nz:80/stories/PO0804/S00187.htm

QUOTE: "Let’s not forget there are powerful vested interests benefiting
from global warming alarmism with vast profit opportunities and
political reputations at stake. They will hang on as long as a gullible
public allows them to."

QUOTE: "In Canada in 2006 the Conservative Party won the election on a
platform which included scrapping the Kyoto Protocol. They said the cost
to the country of Kyoto commitments was too high."

The climate change debate is forever shifting as science casts long
shadows of doubt on the predictions of global catastrophe.

The debate gathered a world-wide audience when climate alarmists gained
control of the climate science agenda. Its popularisation has given it a
political momentum that is proving difficult to halt.

At first the alarmists tried to scare us with those exaggerated claims
that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were causing the earth’s
temperature to rise. They said there was a direct causal relationship
between industrialisation (and therefore CO2 emissions) and global
temperatures, and that link was so serious that mankind would bring
about its own demise if immediate action were not taken

These prophets of doom initially ignored the fact that while
concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases have continued to rise,
global temperatures stopped rising ten years ago. However, with the
growing weight of scientific data now indicating the globe could be
cooling, not warming, the alarmists are now talking of a ‘climate change’
crisis. They have broadened their rhetoric to accommodate all forms of
extreme weather change – in order to hedge their bets!

When will these alarmists stop, you might well ask?

My answer is they won’t. Those promoting the global warming cause will
adapt their reasoning in whatever way is necessary to remain credible in
the eyes of the public. Let’s not forget there are powerful vested
interests benefiting from global warming alarmism with vast profit
opportunities and political reputations at stake. They will hang on as
long as a gullible public allows them to.

And big money there is. All around the world, carbon offset schemes –
many of extremely dubious quality – are growing like topsy. Companies
like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management, which makes money from
investing in "sustainable" businesses, now has $5 billion in funds under
management, according to the New York Times. The runaway success of his
movie "An Inconvenient Truth" would have done the inflow of money into
that fund no harm at all!

This global warming juggernaut, fuelled by United Nations propaganda and
promoted by populist politicians who see "Green" issues as instrumental
to their electoral success, will continue relentlessly until the public
recognise that the ill-advised climate change policies that are being
foisted on them will do nothing to change the climate, but will cost
them dearly. Ironically these policies will have the greatest impact on
the poorest in our community – those Labour and the Greens claim to
protect and foster.

The reality is that the earth is constantly changing. While we are
presently living in temperate times, throughout history the climate has
been both many times hotter and many times colder than it is today.
Claims that mankind is a significant enough force to change the earth’s
climate cycles are exaggerated: the largest proportion of the earth’s
surface – 71 percent – is controlled by ocean systems; a single volcanic
eruption could dwarf all of mankind’s emissions; and even our presence
on earth is overstated when one considers that if every man, woman and
child on the planet stood next to each other the whole human population
could easily fit onto an area the size of Stewart Island.

Professor Bob Carter, an environmental scientist at Queensland’s James
Cook University and this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, is presently in
New Zealand on a lecture tour. Professor Carter was called as an expert
witness on climate change by the US Senate and by the UK High Court in
the case which opposed the showing of Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth"
in British Schools. In his opinion piece "The IPCC: On the Run At Last",
Bob explains how the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change used unrealistic scientific propaganda to stoke public alarm.

"The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never
been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns
have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and
floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one
inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction
film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is
what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged
effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside
normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the
appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for
centuries".

Professor Carter goes on to suggest, "The roughly 50 computer experts
and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC’s stance
must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is
indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and
that natural biological and physico-chemical systems – again as always –
are changing in response. But as to human causation – the evidential
cupboard is bare.

"For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature
has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter
temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year,
IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being
clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable
hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming".

These issues are extremely important for New Zealand. On the basis of
the IPCC’s propaganda and the self-serving hype of Al Gore’s convenient
misrepresentations, as well as the UN’s flawed Kyoto Protocol, our
government is about to introduce a range of climate change policies that
are not only totally unnecessary, but will cause huge damage to our
economy and our livelihoods. On the agenda is the introduction of the
mandatory use of biofuels, an emissions trading scheme, and a 10-year
ban on the building of new base-load thermal power stations. These are
all radical policies that will put New Zealand out on a limb. No other
government is planning to introduce such harsh initiatives which will
pass such massive costs onto businesses and ultimately consumers.

In signing up to Kyoto, Labour made a commitment that New Zealand would
emit no more than 1990 levels of greenhouse gases during the period from
2008 to 2012 and that credits would be bought for any emissions over
this amount. At the time Labour claimed that the deal would result in
$500 million gain for the government. But their calculation turned out
to be wrong and on current Treasury estimates, that windfall gain has
become a massive $963 million liability. In a report "How should we pay
for our Kyoto liability", Business NZ explains that the government is
rushing through its climate change policies in order to ensure that the
cost of its political decision to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol is
passed onto the public.

Business NZ believes that since the government planned to pocket the
$500 million windfall gain from Kyoto, so it should be required to pay
the liability out of the consolidated account – instead of trying to
force the cost of that political miscalculation onto the productive
sector.

In Canada in 2006 the Conservative Party won the election on a platform
which included scrapping the Kyoto Protocol. They said the cost to the
country of Kyoto commitments was too high.

That is still an option for New Zealand. The Kyoto Protocol came into
force on 16 February 2005, but under Article 27, any country can
withdraw after three years of it coming into force. This means as from
16 February 2008 New Zealand is free to withdraw – without any
penalties.

In their paper, Business NZ makes a further point about the cost of the
Kyoto liability. They estimate that by transferring the cost from the
state onto the private sector, the total liability to New Zealand will
increase seven-fold, because the private sector does not have the
international purchasing power of a government. That means that the
government will be responsible for the effective loss of several billion
dollars from our economy.

There is some hope. Forces against the Government’s radical agenda are
now slowly starting to rally. On Thursday New Zealand’s Commissioner for
the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, told Parliament’s Environment Select
Committee that the Biofuel Bill is flawed and should be scrapped.

The Bill imposes a mandatory regime for the introduction of biofuel
blends. Under the Bill, from July, land transport fuels must contain
0.53 percent of biofuels rising to 3.4 percent by 2012. But the problem
is that the use of biofuels is now threatening world food production.
Crops, traditionally grown for food supplies are being converted into
biofuel production causing food riots in Mexico, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Egypt, Africa and the Philippines. The World Bank has estimated that
more than 30 countries around the world face potential social unrest
because of food shortages.

The biofuel craze has also sparked mass de-forestation, with rain
forests in Central and South America being razed to make way for biofuel
production. This has brought a strong reaction from the British
Government’s chief science advisor who stated "The idea

read more »

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (4)

Europe Not Falling For AGW Scam Either: Europe to Import U.S. Coal

Europe to Import U.S. Coal

Peter Glover
Jan. 07, 2008

European buyers are set to sign the first long-term supply deal with
U.S. coal producers. The E.U. currently imports most of its coal, mainly
from South Africa, Russia, and Australia, despite its own large
reserves. But the booming global economy and resultant demand for coal
has changed the global market. China is a net coal importer for the
first time. Australian coal producers are exporting as much as possible,
but can’t keep up with demand. South Africa, too, is diverting much of
its coal to the Asian market. As a result, benchmark prices in Australia
and South Africa reached record levels during November, forcing Europe
to look elsewhere.
A weak dollar and a strong euro have combined to make America the most
attractive option, with 27 percent of proven global reserves. According
to a recent on-line article by Elliot Gue in The Market Oracle, a metric
ton of coal in Europe costs more than $130, whereas in the U.S. it’s
around $50. Even after adding $50 per ton in transport costs, profit
margins are huge. Between January and September 2007, U.S. coal exports
to Europe rose to 11.4 million tons, 15 percent over the same period in
2006. Expect that trend to continue for a while.

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Reminder: aus_invest, the spam-free alternative to aus.invest

This is just areminder about aus_invest, the Australian investment
Google group. No spam, no junk. Anyone can join.

http://groups.google.com/group/aus_invest/

– Phil

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (5)

Way Back, caught lying about Bond Returns

"Way Back Jack" <here@home> wrote

> 18 on the 5-year notes when inflation was 12.

  5 year bonds have never yielded 18 percent annual return.

  Here is the historical data for U.S. 5 year bonds.

  ,Instrument,"U.S. government securities/Treasury constant
maturities/Nominal"
  ,Maturity,"5-year"
  ,Frequency,"Annual"
  ,Description,"Market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 5-year constant
maturity, quoted on investment basis"
  ,Note,"Yields on actively traded non-inflation-indexed issues adjusted to
constant maturities. The 30-year Treasury constant maturity series was
discontinued on February 18, 2002, and reintroduced on February 9, 2006.
From February 18, 2002, to February 9, 2006, the U.S. Treasury published a
factor for adjusting the daily nominal 20-year constant maturity in order to
estimate a 30-year nominal rate. The historical adjustment factor can be
found at
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interest-rate/….
Source: U.S. Treasury."

DATE      , TCMNOMY5
1962, 3.70
1963, 3.83
1964, 4.07
1965, 4.25
1966, 5.11
1967, 5.10
1968, 5.70
1969, 6.93
1970, 7.38
1971, 5.99
1972, 5.98
1973, 6.87
1974, 7.82
1975, 7.78
1976, 7.18
1977, 6.99
1978, 8.32
1979, 9.51
1980, 11.45
1981, 14.25
1982, 13.01
1983, 10.79
1984, 12.26
1985, 10.12
1986, 7.30
1987, 7.94
1988, 8.48
1989, 8.50
1990, 8.37
1991, 7.37
1992, 6.19
1993, 5.14
1994, 6.69
1995, 6.38
1996, 6.18
1997, 6.22
1998, 5.15
1999, 5.55
2000, 6.16
2001, 4.56
2002, 3.82
2003, 2.97
2004, 3.43
2005, 4.05
2006, 4.75
2007, 4.43

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments