tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post5097913340140826559..comments2024-03-08T01:03:44.522-08:00Comments on Humble Student of the Markets: Consensus shifts ahead of CopenhagenCam Hui, CFAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09672203690656029787noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post-9986655638638635232009-12-20T18:34:51.035-08:002009-12-20T18:34:51.035-08:00Many thanks for your comment on Cynicus Economicus...Many thanks for your comment on Cynicus Economicus. I can only agree with your post. It is very sad to see science being laid low in this way. Perhpas moving out of alternative/green energy companies might be a good idea at this stage?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983165364072918091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post-91491376415078697192009-12-08T10:56:27.020-08:002009-12-08T10:56:27.020-08:00many people over 50 simply refuse to do anything t...<i>many people over 50 simply refuse to do anything to change<br /></i><br /><br />People over 50 has seen the same game in several different incarnation!<br /> <br />If one believes the Assumption(s) that:<br /><br />1) CO2 is the only cause of climate change.<br />2) Climate change is always Bad Everywhere, never Good or Indifferent<br />3) If 1 & 2 holds, the climate must be regulated and we can use CO2 emissions to do it.<br />4) The Best Way to handle this Obviously Very Important Job is to let "Markets" do it ...<br /><br />The whole thing unwinds already at '3' and is becomes ridiculous at '4' because we are still seeing the effects of what happened last time "The Market" regulated anything!<br /><br />'3' falls when one factors in exponential growth because if growth is never checked the gain will be infinite - like it is now when the USD changes full percentages just because of some rumour of what Bernanke may say next Tuesday.<br /><br />If people are really certain that emissions are important, then they should argue that we reduce "growth", reduce "consumption" and limit fossil consumption at source. <br /><br />Yet, they are all out peddling the last century "create an infinite amount of derivatives and sell them to suckers-scam" as The Solution and Goldman Sachs (Now With Al Gore) as a force of Good.<br /><br />It just sucks all way.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17203059390856660815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post-8677248433721512542009-12-07T21:55:58.306-08:002009-12-07T21:55:58.306-08:00If you have any doubts about the problems we have ...If you have any doubts about the problems we have look at these avg CO2 ppm figures from the Mauna Loa observatory: no fudging here:<br /><br /> 1990 354.16 <br /> 1991 355.48 <br /> 1992 356.27 <br /> 1993 356.95 <br /> 1994 358.64 <br /> 1995 360.62 <br /> 1996 362.36 <br /> 1997 363.47 <br /> 1998 366.50 <br /> 1999 368.14 <br /> 2000 369.40 <br /> 2001 371.07 <br /> 2002 373.17 <br /> 2003 375.78 <br /> 2004 377.52 <br /> 2005 379.76 <br /> 2006 381.85 <br /> 2007 383.71 <br /> 2008 385.57 <br /><br />Its my firm view that many people over 50 simply refuse to do anything to change and refuse to believe the data presented to them.Bobster747https://www.blogger.com/profile/00064257301504878766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post-12598878148739903952009-12-07T13:12:01.039-08:002009-12-07T13:12:01.039-08:00I frequent the finance blogosphere, but I come fro...I frequent the finance blogosphere, but I come from a family of science folk, including environmental scientists. For some reason, this appears to be a bigger issue in the finance community than anywhere else. This site, Freakonomics, Zero Hedge, Mish, Minyanville, and Finem Respice have all commented, and all seem predisposed to think that climate change is no longer an issue, or that it was always a false issue created by international governments. <br /><br />Research fraud happens. I could give countless examples in the medical field. The scientists who manipulate data lose credibility. But the underlying issues remain unchanged. We know the way various carbons, methane, and other pollutants interact with atmospheric gases, and we know that they change the atmosphere. That is beyond debate. The precise effect on temperatures today is largely unknowable. <br /><br />CRU fraud notwithstanding, quoting a money manager on atmospheric science is akin quoting a sports journalist on quantum mechanics. It's simply beyond their purview, and far more likely than not that their opinion will be of no value. <br /><br />Whatever consensus the money management community comes to regarding climate science, please do let me know, and also, if possible, please let me know if there is any mechanism from which I can open a short position.Kieran McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11606919516884153997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-816559531110064247.post-73176017685724653562009-12-07T11:41:35.946-08:002009-12-07T11:41:35.946-08:00You've got price risk, basis risk, liquidity r...You've got price risk, basis risk, liquidity risk and operational risk, but then there's model risk which is a sort of meta-risk. I think the big opportunities are in exploiting the crass under-hedging of model risk that goes on in large financial institutions, and carbon trading may indeed become one of them.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13614962832390315553noreply@blogger.com