policies similar to those of the Obama administration by the rest of the world, including China and India.
Let us adopt the IPCC temperature sensitivity assumption: a 3.0 degree warming by 2100 attendant upon a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations from pre-industrial levels. If the entire world were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 — the Obama policy — the predicted temperature reduction would be about 0.04 degrees C by 2050, and 0.15 degrees C by 2100. (Note that the standard deviation of the surface temperature record is about 0.11 degrees C.) What costs would be justified in pursuit of such outcomes?
Here is a good reply by a yahoo commenter Marc:
Accordingly, the recent IPCC projections are falling, an observation that when combined with the Why are the politicians using scare tatics and why aren't the politicians looking at the facts of the IPCC own report? Accordingly, the recent IPCC projections are falling, an observation that when combined with the global temperature pause may explain why there seems to be a trend in recent news reports emphasizing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (summarized above) rather than the purported effects in terms of extreme weather events. It is the effects that are not known; the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are not disputed by anyone.
With respect to the effects of greenhouse gas concentrations, the evidence suggests that increases in extreme weather events have not happened despite the predictions of many. The past two years have set a record for the fewest tornadoes ever in a similar period, and there has been no trend in the frequency of strong (F3 to F5) tornadoes in the United States since 1950. The number of wildfires is in a long-term decline. It has been eight years since a Category 3 or higher hurricane landed on a U.S. coast; that long a period devoid of an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in 40 years, with zero major hurricanes. There has been no trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, and global cyclone activity and energy are near their lowest levels since reliable measurements began by satellite in the 1970s.
There is no long-term trend in sea-level increases correlated with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The record of changes in the size of the Arctic ice cover is far more ambiguous than often asserted, because the satellite measurements began at the outset of the warming period from roughly the late 1970s through the mid- to late 1990s; and the Arctic (TBC)
Ditto George Will.
And this guys says that fb and msft are contributors to the deniers? Those a holes are as far left as you can go. Freaking scientists funded by the government will stack the data any way obamy tells them to. The problem is that the data doesn't support the results. Arctic ice area at all time high. It was supposed to be gone by now. Kerry says gw is our biggest problem globally. He is the most stupid SoS since Hitlery. obamy surrounds himself with stupidity, just so he can look good, but it is not working.
If reading the IEA predictions was all it took, we would all be rich, right? I believe our current situtation is not enough demand. Soon it will be not enough supply. Re Russia: Read Tom Clancy's Command Authority. It is the playbook for Putin's activities in the Ukraine at this moment. If he is successful with this, he will move north to the baltic countries and pull the same maneuvers. The nutless wonder in the wh will watch in awe, but do nothing.
Lybia has stopped producing, possibly ditto Nigeria reductions/ cessation if the ebola keeps going, Iraq supply in jeopardy, deep water drilling diminishing, predictions of another cold winter coming up and the experts calling for fracking rapid declines all seem to indicate that the price should increase, but every day it goes down. Something other than the free market is in control here. What could it be? Low oil prices would reduce the capability of terror organizations including dear old russia, but I don't think we can influence that with the current 'leadership'. Any ideas?
The sa guy stacks the deck nicely to support his rationale for reducing the dividend. He claims he is not short, but didn't say he wasn't working for shorts.
That big short position on the euro should start to pay off one of these days. Can't be too soon for me. This 2.5 cent dividend is getting very old.
He cherry picked earnings from quarters when two refineries were down for maintenance and projected future free cash flows to capex spending ratios that would not support the distribution, stating they would have to reduce it eventually. This looks like is a good time to add shares, down over 6% today and still falling like a rock. SA does not deserve such power.
It may, after the x date and it hits 39. You should pay attention to history on this stock. You will make more money.
Maybe they will short more euro's. That was a genius move . Is the indian girl still there? I hope not. And no, we are not being fairly compensated. The only way that would be right is if you are an employee. If you are, you are obviously overpaid. My $025 worth.
doubt it gets that low til post div. You might want to not bother this time. The analysts want to have their way with this stock, so it could be a non typical pattern this time. I will only have 40% of the normal quantity this quarter.
Never listen to those who post on yahoo message boards. 90% are posers, esp the 10000 share buyers (never do that...). You will be better off buying index funds and sound, low fee mutual funds from Vanguard. They, at least, have professional management. With stocks, you will buy high, like yesterday, and sell low, like today. The market managers have that psychology down to a science. I trade every day and have done so for 40 years. I've done well, but it is a full time job. Take the easy way. Dollar cost average your way in and forget about it for 20 years or so.