2020 Elections

[MarkD]

I will take oil for $300. That's what I see with the supply constraints and fake climate change rhetoric. And my portfolio is heavily weighted in that direction.

[Triplethought]

I will take oil for $300. That's what I see with the supply constraints and fake climate change rhetoric. And my portfolio is heavily weighted in that direction.

Do you think the rhetoric is fake or are you saying climate change is fake? Either way I think Biden will kill XL (already signaled) possibly implement a carbon tax, limit oil production thru regulation etc. I guess you will say yes that's why think oil & gas will go up...due to unnecessary restrictions on US production (while clearly the world still needs oil).

Assuming you're correct I think oil still won't "2X" or more like AI or BIo tech stocks. IMHO It might be a decent long term play but it isn't going to get you rich quick. You will say "I don't expect it to" but my point is if you can put your money in something that goes up 1.5x (oil) in the next 4 years or 5x (Ai) the only reason to invest in oil is to diversify into a more conservative play that is slightly less risky.

I think for anyone who says climate change is real "because most scientists say so" I'd say fair enough... but if that's their position I hope the next word out of their mouth is "nuclear" ....for the same reason....because "if you simply look at the science" you see that's the clear solution. Thinking wind and solar solves our energy problems or Insisting that choking oil and gas supplies or implementing a carbon tax magically solves things just doesn't recognize world economic and energy realities. Trying to be an "observer investor" so if anyone sees it differently chime in. I must admit I'm not likely to buy nuclear stocks at this point unless someone gets Fusion working.

[Alykin]

I will take oil for $300. That's what I see with the supply constraints and fake climate change rhetoric. And my portfolio is heavily weighted in that direction.

Do you think the rhetoric is fake or are you saying climate change is fake? Either way I think Biden will kill XL (already signaled) possibly implement a carbon tax, limit oil production thru regulation etc. I guess you will say yes that's why think oil & gas will go up...due to unnecessary restrictions on US production (while clearly the world still needs oil).

Assuming you're correct I think oil still won't "2X" or more like AI or BIo tech stocks. IMHO It might be a decent long term play but it isn't going to get you rich quick. You will say "I don't expect it to" but my point is if you can put your money in something that goes up 1.5x (oil) in the next 4 years or 5x (Ai) the only reason to invest in oil is to diversify into a more conservative play that is slightly less risky.

I think for anyone who says climate change is real "because most scientists say so" I'd say fair enough... but if that's their position I hope the next word out of their mouth is "nuclear" ....for the same reason....because "if you simply look at the science" you see that's the clear solution. Thinking wind and solar solves our energy problems or Insisting that choking oil and gas supplies or implementing a carbon tax magically solves things just doesn't recognize world economic and energy realities. Trying to be an "observer investor" so if anyone sees it differently chime in. I must admit I'm not likely to buy nuclear stocks at this point unless someone gets Fusion working.

Given that the planet earth formed at one point, cooled, changed, and continues to change (we aren't in an ice age anymore), it's short sighted to say that climate change isn't real, even without human impact. The timeline of any major change impacting our society may be beyond our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The argument is only whether or not human activity and our by products are accelerating it, but it's happening nonetheless. It saddens me that many people focus on relatively short term gains vs. long term (hundreds/thousands of years) stability, but that's human nature I suppose.

I'm looking forward to the big leap when we come up with an energy source that is super cheap to the point of being basically free, have one less thing to fight over.

[Budge]

I will take oil for $300. That's what I see with the supply constraints and fake climate change rhetoric. And my portfolio is heavily weighted in that direction.

Do you think the rhetoric is fake or are you saying climate change is fake? Either way I think Biden will kill XL (already signaled) possibly implement a carbon tax, limit oil production thru regulation etc. I guess you will say yes that's why think oil & gas will go up...due to unnecessary restrictions on US production (while clearly the world still needs oil).

Assuming you're correct I think oil still won't "2X" or more like AI or BIo tech stocks. IMHO It might be a decent long term play but it isn't going to get you rich quick. You will say "I don't expect it to" but my point is if you can put your money in something that goes up 1.5x (oil) in the next 4 years or 5x (Ai) the only reason to invest in oil is to diversify into a more conservative play that is slightly less risky.

I think for anyone who says climate change is real "because most scientists say so" I'd say fair enough... but if that's their position I hope the next word out of their mouth is "nuclear" ....for the same reason....because "if you simply look at the science" you see that's the clear solution. Thinking wind and solar solves our energy problems or Insisting that choking oil and gas supplies or implementing a carbon tax magically solves things just doesn't recognize world economic and energy realities. Trying to be an "observer investor" so if anyone sees it differently chime in. I must admit I'm not likely to buy nuclear stocks at this point unless someone gets Fusion working.

Given that the planet earth formed at one point, cooled, changed, and continues to change (we aren't in an ice age anymore), it's short sighted to say that climate change isn't real, even without human impact. The timeline of any major change impacting our society may be beyond our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The argument is only whether or not human activity and our by products are accelerating it, but it's happening nonetheless. It saddens me that many people focus on relatively short term gains vs. long term (hundreds/thousands of years) stability, but that's human nature I suppose.

I'm looking forward to the big leap when we come up with an energy source that is super cheap to the point of being basically free, have one less thing to fight over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&t=380s

[AstuteShift]

https://youtu.be/dUb66PZ5EgY

Interesting take, those who control the money control the laws and the country

So either party is rubbish compared to the banksters

[SOL]

I will post a short 4th level type answer and in 2021 my theme is to say more in fewer words at least in these forums but I am also aware that what one wants and what one achieves are two separate things. And lastly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions


1) We are taught that the root of all evil is money. true but that ignores the disease. The root of all evil is humanity (well at least 90%). If not for their insane desire to have more and more at the expense of others Fiat could never achieve what it has today

2) conventionally Fiat is the root of all evil (level 3 analysis)

So how do you look at climate change, polarization and all the other crap or good that is happening and that will happen in terms of investing.


Simple solution

Focus on the trend and don't fixate on crap (crap here refers to most news). Invest in things that the masses frown upon but where the trend is positive. Long term the trend for oil is still crap, but in between, you can make money. However, in general, there are so many other options out there that unless I see a screaming buy in the oil sector I am not going to take on the risk

Life is simple, investing even simpler, but humans have the innate capacity to convert facts into Shit and then turn this shit into false gold and then chase this false gold without understanding that they are actually chasing CRAP. Clearly proving that the average person loves misery.

[Eric]

Given that the planet earth formed at one point, cooled, changed, and continues to change (we aren't in an ice age anymore), it's short sighted to say that climate change isn't real, even without human impact.

Given that the earth has undergone NUMEROUS ice ages and warmer times for millennia, it's short-sighted to say that "climate change" is a problem. Also, in the 1970s the "environmental crisis" was global cooling and earth was only 10 years away from a man-made ice age. In the late 1980s and 1990s the "environmental crisis" was global warming and the earth was only 10 years away from all the ice on the planet melting and raising the sea level 10 feet and flooding out all the prime beach-font homes owned by the leftist-elite. Crap; that didn't happen either. Lets call it "climate change" because average sheeple can't be bothered to rub two brain cells together and differentiate between "weather" and "climate". Hot? "Climate change." Cold? "Climate change." Drought? "Climate change." Deluge? "Climate change." Hurricanes? "Climate change." Lack of hurricanes? "Climate change."

The timeline of any major change impacting our society may be beyond our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The argument is only whether or not human activity and our by products are accelerating it, but it's happening nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4

So a better question is why did Al Gore space the "Temperature" and "CO2" plots so far apart and then ask rhetorically "do they ever fit together?" It couldn't be to hide the fact that temperature increases PRECEDE CO2 increases by 400 years, that would be dishonest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8spRiNtfJA

Golly, I thought man-made global cooling...nope, global warming...nope, "climate change" was the most important thing and an imminent threat to humanity? What could these "other reasons" be?

It saddens me that many people focus on relatively short term gains vs. long term (hundreds/thousands of years) stability, but that's human nature I suppose.

It saddens me that so many people that can't be bothered to rub two brain cells together and differentiate between "weather" and "climate" think that the earth's temperature has ever been stable, let alone thinking they can choose the exact ideal global temperature and attempt to hold it right there.

I'm looking forward to the big leap when we come up with an energy source that is super cheap to the point of being basically free, have one less thing to fight over.

We have that twice over, they're called "nuclear power" and "fossil fuels".

[Yodean]

"Invest in things that the masses frown upon but where the trend is positive."

I quite like that sentence. Very succint.

Elucidating what the masses frown upon is fairly straightforward. Determining if the trend is positive is not always so easy, but doesn't have to be that difficult?

Some off-the-cuff ideas that loosely fit, at least in my world, at the moment:

-drugs (i.e. cannabis, psilocybin, DMT, etc. and their related products);

-solitude (this includes the concept of "virtual" families, where you create your own family members, friends, and pets in your virtual world, to replace "real" world annoying family members, friends, and pets);

-virtual sex (i.e. sophisticated pornography, sex robots/dolls, combining VR/AR porn with robots/dolls, VR/AR brothels, etc.);

-being your own doctor (i.e. using A.I. to determine your diagnosis, which medications/supplements you need, which exercises to do, etc., A.I. counselling/psychotherapy);

-virtual travel;

-individualized online/virtual education/training, to replace traditional schooling/colleges/universities;

-E-sports, AR/VR sports (to slowly replace "real" world sports);

-being single after 35 - 40, childfree, non-traditional relationship units/families/genders (e.g. "I identify as Alien, so you must address me as Alien, you little human. These are your laws, not mine.");

[MarkD]

Agree with Sol that oil is not a LT play, but considering the nature of the investing cycle it is oversold imo. As the global economy reopens, as the fools in D.C. pile on with carbon credits to reduce oil production, actions to shut down pipelines, there is going to be a supply constraint. And I happen to believe with the dividends 6-8% it's going to outperform most of the S&P 500 for a period of time.

What would change my mind? Large scale adoption of decentralized nuclear power. Significant increase in electric transport. And I don't believe from what I have read that man made climate change is a huge contributor to life on a "living" planet.

Mostly agree with everyone here.

[Alykin]

Given that the planet earth formed at one point, cooled, changed, and continues to change (we aren't in an ice age anymore), it's short sighted to say that climate change isn't real, even without human impact.

Given that the earth has undergone NUMEROUS ice ages and warmer times for millennia, it's short-sighted to say that "climate change" is a problem. Also, in the 1970s the "environmental crisis" was global cooling and earth was only 10 years away from a man-made ice age. In the late 1980s and 1990s the "environmental crisis" was global warming and the earth was only 10 years away from all the ice on the planet melting and raising the sea level 10 feet and flooding out all the prime beach-font homes owned by the leftist-elite. Crap; that didn't happen either. Lets call it "climate change" because average sheeple can't be bothered to rub two brain cells together and differentiate between "weather" and "climate". Hot? "Climate change." Cold? "Climate change." Drought? "Climate change." Deluge? "Climate change." Hurricanes? "Climate change." Lack of hurricanes? "Climate change."

The timeline of any major change impacting our society may be beyond our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The argument is only whether or not human activity and our by products are accelerating it, but it's happening nonetheless.

So a better question is why did Al Gore space the "Temperature" and "CO2" plots so far apart and then ask rhetorically "do they ever fit together?" It couldn't be to hide the fact that temperature increases PRECEDE CO2 increases by 400 years, that would be dishonest.



Golly, I thought man-made global cooling...nope, global warming...nope, "climate change" was the most important thing and an imminent threat to humanity? What could these "other reasons" be?

It saddens me that many people focus on relatively short term gains vs. long term (hundreds/thousands of years) stability, but that's human nature I suppose.

It saddens me that so many people that can't be bothered to rub two brain cells together and differentiate between "weather" and "climate" think that the earth's temperature has ever been stable, let alone thinking they can choose the exact ideal global temperature and attempt to hold it right there.

I'm looking forward to the big leap when we come up with an energy source that is super cheap to the point of being basically free, have one less thing to fight over.

We have that twice over, they're called "nuclear power" and "fossil fuels".

Climate change may not be a problem for the planet itself, but it is for the people living in coastal cities if water levels rise, for example, or if jet stream patterns shift causing previously rainy area to dry up impacting crop growth. Ignoring it will have a steep price eventually, so when we identify it, taking steps to adapt seems reasonable to me.

I make no claims that everything stated in the last 50 years about the planet is accurate, so bringing the history of it into this doesn't phase me. Science is not perfect and is ever being refined. Things we believe to be true today will be proven false in the future.
I'm not a scientist out there taking measurements myself, so I can only trust that the sources that are making the evaluations of melting ice and average temps are accurate. If they are lying to us, then I can't know that yet.

And regarding my view on short term gains vs. long term stability, I include smaller environmental impacts (dumping chemicals in a river for example, or all the plastics building up) where it's profitable to do what we're doing now, but in the long term a problem is building. I never claimed that we can or should stabilize the planet's climate, but if we identify a problem that negatively impacts long term sustainability, it's a good idea to take steps to correct it rather than ignore it for the sake of short term profits.

[stefk]

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/djeasterbro ... hange.html

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/glacialfluc.pdf

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_pa ... essons.pdf

Don Easterbrook is geologist and emeritus professor in Washington university. The temperatures are recorded with the glaciers, they retract or they expand. All the historical temps variations correspond with the PDO, pacific decadal oscillation. The CO2 and the man have nothing to do with temps variations. It is proved and recorded in the glaciers

[SOL]

Frist of all let me state that All of us at the Tactical Investor are impressed at the way everyone in both the forums is handling themselves. Despite varying opinions no one is resorting to attacking those with opinions that differ from what they believe and it means that we have a group of solid level headed individuals in both forums. Kudos to all of you.

We beleive that Global warming is real, we just don't buy the alarmists approach that man is causing it. The planet has many means of dealing with pesky humans. It has been around for billions of years and we are here at best only for several hundred thousand years. So the planet is the master and humans are just another grain in the sand of time.


Some interesting info on Global Warming

Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.

EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 001f953a5a

Read the full article above it is very interesting to say the least

the REAL inconvenient truth: Scientist claims global warming is NATURAL

CLIMATE change is a natural phenomenon, according to a shock new report which throws a spanner in the works of those who say global warming is a result of man-made activity.

Well respected Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy says global temperatures would have still risen without the industrial revolution – essentially dismissing the claim that man is responsible for climate change.

Most scientists will say climate change is caused by an increase of CO2 being ploughed into the atmosphere thanks to the industrial revolution.

But Dr Marohasy along with fellow scientist Dr John Abbot state this assumption is based on a model which was decided almost 120 years ago.

That model, mustered up by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who is considered one of the godfathers of physical chemistry, claimed carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation.
Dr Marohasy and Dr Abbot published a paper in the journal GeoResJ outlining their study of climate change using neural network technology.

They fed this data into a machine learning neural network which offered prediction patterns of temperatures for the last two millennia if there was not extra CO2.

The computer predicted temperatures which almost exactly match what global temperatures have been, even if there was not an industrial revolution.

They also found the world was warmer during the Medieval times.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... r-marohasy

Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade

There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.

He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’

He said: ‘There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

Even if the earth does warm up, Moore claims that it will be to the advantage of humans and other forms of life, as ‘humans are a tropical species’.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... Moore.html

[Triplethought]

-solitude (this includes the concept of "virtual" families, where you create your own family members, friends, and pets in your virtual world, to replace "real" world annoying family members, friends, and pets);

-virtual sex (i.e. sophisticated pornography, sex robots/dolls, combining VR/AR porn with robots/dolls, VR/AR brothels, etc.);

-being your own doctor (i.e. using A.I. to determine your diagnosis, which medications/supplements you need, which exercises to do, etc., A.I. counselling/psychotherapy);

-virtual travel;

-individualized online/virtual education/training, to replace traditional schooling/colleges/universities;

-E-sports, AR/VR sports (to slowly replace "real" world sports);

-being single after 35 - 40, childfree, non-traditional relationship units/families/genders (e.g. "I identify as Alien, so you must address me as Alien, you little human. These are your laws, not mine.");

I agree with you all except the virtual family. I think that is a losing proposition - both as a societal trend and as an investment of any sort. The rest I like.

[Yodean]

This is interesting, a type of "virtual immortality?":

Microsoft has been granted a patent to “revive” the dead as chatbots, recreating their personality from social postings, writings, and videos to keep their grieving loved ones company.

The living-dead chatbot would be fed all available traces of the deceased – their “images, voice data, social media posts, electronic messages,” and other data – in an effort to mimic their personality as closely as possible. Videos would also be used to generate a 2D or 3D model of the person, further adding verisimilitude by incorporating not just their surface appearance but also their behavioral mannerisms.

https://www.rt.com/usa/513367-microsoft ... dystopian/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, MSFT appears to have the first-mover advantage with GPT3:

GPT-3 generates texts using pre-trained algorithms created by Open AI which was co-founded by Elon Musk. GPT-3 has basically hoovered up most of the text published online much as Google's search engine has indexed web pages throw regular crawls. The result is that GPT-3 can answer questions, write essays, summarise texts, translate languages, take memos, virtually anything a human can do involving text, GPT-3 can do.

Microsoft has effectively bought GPT-3. It was supposed to be open source, but Microsoft saw what GPT-3 could do and has an exclusive right to the source code.

There will be plenty more competing GPT-3s out there as each tech giant will have their own AI.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article68299.html

[Triplethought]

Frist of all let me state that All of us at the Tactical Investor are impressed at the way everyone in both the forums is handling themselves. Despite varying opinions no one is resorting to attacking those with opinions that differ from what they believe and it means that we have a group of solid level headed individuals in both forums. Kudos to all of you.

We beleive that Global warming is real, we just don't buy the alarmists approach that man is causing it. The planet has many means of dealing with pesky humans. It has been around for billions of years and we are here at best only for several hundred thousand years. So the planet is the master and humans are just another grain in the sand of time.

I totally agree climate alarmism is a huge problem. I'm reading a book called apocalypse never that's written by a former climate dude and he makes the point beautifully. Also, my daughter, who is a Phd at MIT in mechanical engineering told me... pretty much the way to get your research project funded is to tie it in some way to climate change. Doesn't matter if you're a biologist or a physicist. And I think that is true - if you follow the money it makes sense that scientists are LOOKING for climate change and there WILL be confirmation bias in the scientific community.

I really wish there were a way these issues were debated in a way understandable to layman. I resisted that climate change is happening and finally grudgingly admitted it probably is and it is probably caused by man because so many scientists seem so damn sure. I do TRY to believe science and much smarter dudes than me believe it's true so I have to at least try to respect their point of view.

My standard argument (rather than try to debate whether it's happening) has become: If you insist climate change is happening and is caused by man because "science" then the next words out of your mouth better be "nuclear". Because if your solution is wind & solar or carbon tax or EVs you just lost your scientific credibility with me. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be part of the solution. But as A recent WSJ article stated, the overwhelmingly obvious answer to give renewable energy to the world on the scale it needs is nuclear https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-nucle ... 1547225861