Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 7:07 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 23 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Co, LLC Message Board

jj27713 80 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 19, 2014 12:12 PM Member since: Jan 11, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • jj27713 jj27713 May 21, 2014 8:42 AM Flag

    You mean the 'hottest ever' for the upwardly adjusted data for the last 135 years in a climate that is warming up after a little ice age event that lasted 350 years...right?
    Should we panic now? Or are we back to the normal declining trend line in temperatures of the last 10,000 years? I note that it's going to be 88 degrees today here in NC. Is that hotter than normal?
    Oh dear...maybe I shouldn't re-warm my coffee now...

  • jj27713 jj27713 May 21, 2014 10:46 AM Flag

    OK. As soon as you realize all it not what it seems. If you dig into the background of all the alarmist information you cling to you will find that most all of it is rampant speculation not backed up by real world data. Why do you subscribe to gloom and doom model output when the model output has proved very wrong and drastically over-estimates the actual real world data? And who watches right wing TV all day? Like those who watch left wing TV all day? I think the really informed people are those who watch left AND right wing TV to try to get to the truth...

  • jj27713 jj27713 May 21, 2014 3:08 PM Flag

    Levy,
    Please. PLEASE tell us what the proper temperature for Earth should be! You can't? Well of course you can't. There is not one of those 'qualified' scientists who can either. Not a one. And because neither you nor ANYONE else can, then how, in your hypocritical world, can you say global warming is bad? You can't . And therefore you don't have a solitary leg to stand on. We can't say whether the world is warmer than it 'should' be nor can we say it's colder than it 'should' be.
    Nonetheless, some 'scientific' types have poisoned your thought processes to use any rationale or logic to think this through. You have been heavily biased to believe something that has almost no data behind it. It's just scare tactics, innuendo and bad science. Don't be a puppet...

  • jj27713 jj27713 May 22, 2014 8:23 PM Flag

    "No ice=no holes=no food"
    Well g-p, there is ice, it appears as though it may even be rebounding, and the polar bear population is apparently growing far more and far faster than any of the alarmists ever would have guessed 12 years ago. So how exactly does your comment hold water?
    I think maybe it is you that is in denial...of real world data, the inability of the climate models to imitate reality, of climate cycles, of the exaggerated threat implied of CO2 and of not reading all the research that runs counter to the alarmist meme. How exactly did you let your fear and anxiety get so tweaked by the alarmists?

  • Reply to

    Wow

    by alkkov May 22, 2014 2:21 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 23, 2014 1:37 PM Flag

    Owen,
    80% in cash. That's interesting as I am 2% in cash...the lowest I have been all year. I do think 2% is too little though, and I am drifting back to ~10% by year end. We have such opposite viewpoints...I wonder if either of us are well positioned for remainder of 2014?

  • Reply to

    Time is running out

    by redshoe77 May 26, 2014 10:46 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 26, 2014 11:56 AM Flag

    red,
    The number 400 is absolutely no more significant than 399 or 401. Only in the eyes of the easily swayed does it influence them unduly. Will they make a big deal about 401ppm? Of course not. 404ppm? Not a chance.
    CO2 IS NOT the most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. H2O is. How long does H20 remain in the atmosphere? The oceans? Apparently the WMO is not really keeping you informed of the truth are they? Nope. They are trying to influence the easily influenceable. Like you.
    I really like how some groups say the time will (has?) run out at 340ppm. Or those that say 350 ppm. Or those that say 400 ppm. Or those that say it's 550 ppm. So when, exactly, does the WHO think that 'time runs out'? Michel Jarraud sounds like another alarmist using emotions rather than facts. Is the science settled? Al Gore thinks so. But Al Gore has been wrong about so many things over the past few years that he is faded into irrelevance now.
    Did you use fossil fuel energy to post this link of yours, red? Why did you do such a potentially damaging thing, red? You just boosted the CO2 level in the atmosphere...maybe past a tipping point even...

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Time is running out

    by redshoe77 May 26, 2014 10:46 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 26, 2014 10:32 PM Flag

    I don't know. I don't recall knowing there was a March 35th coming up...

  • jj27713 jj27713 May 27, 2014 10:55 AM Flag

    The IPCC has seen and survived its share of political turmoil in its nearly 20 year history. Yet recent years have not been kind: the academy has been in a state of ethical decline since the output of its first AR report in 2001.

    When funding, generous from the beginning, continued rising drastically in the 2000's, too many of the academy’s ageing — and increasingly unproductive — members became preoccupied with securing personal political status. Last year, an external assessment of the academy’s science managed to conclude that each of the IPCC chapter reviewers pushes politically motivated research; and typically, no external scientists were consulted. In fact, by all measures, only a small fraction of academy reviewers can be considered independent, non-interested assessors. Many produce only poor science — and outsiders have criticized the organization again and again for refusing to accept real world data or demands to dump their non-performing climate models.
    ________________

    There. Fixed it for you.

  • jj27713 jj27713 May 27, 2014 11:02 AM Flag

    Another very interesting development is the massive natural gas deal that Russia has forged with China for the next 30 years. This is a clear sign that the age of the petrodollar is coming to a fast end. Russia is also working on big deals to supply China and Syria with large quantities of uranium for nuclear reactor power.
    Europe is in a bad way for the near future as it does not have any homegrown power to meet its future needs...especially if Russia plays hardball with natural gas supplies. Ironically, France is going to be in the best position due to it's heavy nuclear power production capabilities. As a whole, Europe may have to fall back on the steady power of coal for another couple decades until it works out its increasing reliable power needs. LNG shipments from the US and Canada may help to alleviate the worst of their potential power shortage.

    JJ

  • Reply to

    Global warming myths

    by redshoe77 May 28, 2014 1:44 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 28, 2014 2:43 PM Flag

    Red, Just so you know, most of what those 'scientific' responses are have been proven false (please check the official databases), are not proven one way or the other (the answers are not yet known) or entirely speculative and possibly not provable in any case. I can see that the alarmists are fully capable of swaying you emotionally, but wayyy short on facts or truth.
    Just so you know...
    There is zero evidence to say that the frequency or severity of tornados has worsened over recorded history.
    There is zero evidence to say that the frequency or severity of hurricanes has worsened in recorded history.
    There is zero evidence that drought is increasing globally in recorded history.
    There is zero evidence that rainfall is increasing over recorded history.
    There is zero evidence that heat waves have increased in frequency or duration.
    There is strong evidence that relative humidity is declining as temperatures rise.
    There is plenty of evidence that the tiny change in ocean pH is well within recorded ranges.
    There is zero evidence to say that the Arctic ice sheet is lower now than in any time in the past several thousand years.
    There is no evidence that agriculture overall will be 'hurt' by changes in temperature.
    It wasn't just Lindzen and Choi that found IPCC CO2 climate forcing too high. There are now more than a dozen papers saying it is. Even the IPCC has acknowledged this problem in their models.
    There is a mountain of evidence that says that the temperature records are being manipulated for the benefit of global warming and that monitoring stations are still used against the standards of placement.
    ---------------------------------------------
    There is a lot more real data that squashes the pseudo-science of the alarmists. You need to read 'wattsupwiththat' as all these alarmist-truisms are evaluated for methodology, accuracy and outright falsifications with total transparency at data back-up. Really. Nothing gets by that isn't verifiable...

  • Reply to

    Google car

    by rz400 May 28, 2014 2:01 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 28, 2014 3:16 PM Flag

    Not in the long run. Since these cars are probably limited to 25 mph (ie. low demand power needs) for some time to come, does it make more sense to run them with batteries or fuel cells? I think that either choice is likely as the cars could drive themselves to a local charging/fueling station between operating intervals with equal ease.

  • Reply to

    Google car

    by rz400 May 28, 2014 2:01 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 28, 2014 3:39 PM Flag

    jolie,
    The batteries are recyclable you know? And PEM membranes eventually wear out and have to be replaced?. Then there is the issue with efficiency. Batteries are about 90% electrically efficient round trip and fuel cells are about 30% electrically efficient. Do you think this will have any sway of which system to use?

  • Reply to

    Google car

    by rz400 May 28, 2014 2:01 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 28, 2014 4:28 PM Flag

    I'm not so sure about that. Comparing the Tesla and the Hyundai Tuscon, the Tesla weighs about 4700 lbs. vs. 4100 lbs. and the Tesla travels a few miles less distance 265 miles vs. 300 miles. However, the Tesla is actually 40-50% more efficient depending on who's numbers you use on an energy consumption (equiv. mpg) basis. With the 'supercharger' used to charge a Tesla I would say that the small battery pack of a Google car would charge fully in the same few minutes as a hydrogen refueling would take for the Google car.
    So even though the Google car may weigh more with a battery pack than an FC system it uses about half the energy per mile. If the charging/fueling times are roughly equal, I'm not sure that the FC is an obvious winner in this case.

  • Reply to

    Global warming myths

    by redshoe77 May 28, 2014 1:44 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 May 28, 2014 4:36 PM Flag

    Hey g.p,
    I am using real data, collected by real government and private scientists that is openly available to the masses such as yourself. I don't work for the oil companies. Why would I rely on innuendo, speculation, exploding people and supposition? Why wouldn't you demand real data and not alarmist fabrications? If a claim can not be backed up by solid evidence or supported by the collected data then it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a 'fact' now should it?
    You seem to make mistake after mistake...kind of like redshoe.

  • jj27713 by jj27713 Jun 2, 2014 9:37 AM Flag

    Red,
    I have been travelling for a few days, but wanted to get back to you. You asked me about where I get my 'phony data' from. There are so many official government databases out there that track various aspects of the climate I can't list them all. But you can go to the 'Reference' tab on the front page of wattsupwiththat and get a look at about 100 that are updated everytime you click on the database/graph. These are the official ones...you know...from NOAA, NASA, etc. all around the world. If you actually read the comments you will see that the readers often find additional ones that are not included in the 'Reference' database. By perusing the databases you will find that cyclones are trending down, sea level rise is not accelerating, global sea ice is above average, Arctic sea ice has stabilized and is not declining further, Atmospheric humidity is constant at the surface but has been declining at altitude, etc. You will also find that several databases don't agree with one another. You will find that ocean heat content is rising, but sea surface temperatures have stabilized. You might like a new graph (May 22 ) that a reader found showing there is no increase in global drought despite everything you hear to the contrary.
    Much of the data is just that...data...and there isn't a lot of explanation or understanding by the climate scientists of the world why stuff is as it is or why it changes. (Yes...I know... Al Gore says the science is settled. Poor Al.) You will also find many articles where errors have been discovered by the watts readership and how the climate establishment responds to finding out about their errors. Discovering that NOAA says that Arctic sea ice will be above normal this summer. How data is biased in its presentation. Where taxpayer money is absolutely wasted. How the expansion and contraction of our atmosphere can dramatically change in just a couple hours. How the climate models are major failures. Etc. Have a read!

  • Reply to

    Once upon a time

    by redshoe77 Jun 1, 2014 11:59 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jun 2, 2014 3:02 PM Flag

    Are you an expert on biblical theology now, red? Should I ask for proof?

  • Reply to

    More that a Dividend Run Happening in LNCO

    by play_tow Jun 4, 2014 10:43 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jun 4, 2014 11:23 AM Flag

    coochy,
    But that is what speculation is all about, no? Trying to discern what is happening before the masses. I would like to have owned LNCO at $28 and ride it to $29 rather than to wait to see if it gets over $29 first.
    If it gets to $29 and fails, I still get a dividend for my speculation. If it gets to $29 and continues, I get a dividend and the follow on appreciation that one would not get by waiting.
    That is why I like Play-tow's question!

  • Reply to

    Question for longs?

    by pape7braves May 31, 2014 11:23 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jun 4, 2014 11:33 PM Flag

    That was their IPO of 19 million shares...

  • Reply to

    Databases

    by jj27713 Jun 2, 2014 9:37 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jun 9, 2014 6:51 AM Flag

    Hey Red,
    Sorry to get back to you so late. I have been setti8ng up a chemistry lab for a friend.
    I just about fell out of my chair reading your 'response'! I give you the life work of hundreds of scientists to carefully acquire information to advance the understanding of weather and climate...databases that the best scientists are trying to make sense of how they might interact with each other...and you give them what, a few minutes at best? And then proclaim your educated #$%$' response that they are nuts? What a riot, red! You come back with some lame alarmist bloggies comment that WUWT is the most unscientific group about weather and climate in the world?

    And you wonder why no-one gives you any respect...

  • Reply to

    Databases

    by jj27713 Jun 2, 2014 9:37 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Jun 9, 2014 7:08 AM Flag

    Au contraire, blue! WUWT has won the best climate blog in the world three times now. It has more readership, by far, than any other blog. Its readership continues to grow while most other alarmist blogs are fading into oblivion. Why?

    WUWT takes each scientific paper in turn and dissects it to see if the conclusions hold water. They see if the data used by the author(s) has backing in any real database as its support and if the conclusions make mathematical sense. If not, WUWT often invites the authors to support their article on the site and open the article up for criticism. What other blog does that?

    WUWT accepts opposing commenters as long as the commenters remain rational. Other alarmist blogs will deny you access and wipe away all your historical comments if you try to bring any opposing views to their site.

    WUWT is not composed only of skeptics. Right now there is some very interesting discussions of whether or not there really is an effect of sunspot cycles on the weather/climate. Data is being presented on both sides of the issue. WUWT is after the truth where ever it might lead.

    WUWT is very big on making distinctions between politics and science. It is very big on exposing false claims. Some publications have made no logical sense. The authors have not responded. And now some of the data is being attempted to be obtained through the FOIA process. You ought to follow some of these efforts. It is almost impossible to get the authors source of raw data and how it was used to make their claims. Scientists and universities seem to be lawyered up in a big way to prevent 'science' from being reviewed or duplicated as it is supposed to be...if it is science after all.

    WUWT specifically found the broken data sensors on two satellites before the satellite engineers did. WUWT forced the NWS to re-evaluate their poor weather station placement and begin working on a premier monitoring system. WUWT routinely spots bad temperature reports, etc.

LNCO
30.73+0.19(+0.62%)Aug 20 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.