Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Pretty triumphant for:
$742MM net loss
$1.3B Cash net of customer deposits, with $3B in accounts payable, $2B in current debt, and a quarterly free cashflow of ($730MM)
I guess a PE firm or three might be in line to provide it... Reminiscent of Michael Dell 5 or 6 years ago.
Would you dudes stop talking in Portuguese and just say whether it's a buy or sell? I'm trying to mooch investment advice here.
Moderate to high risk with insufficient upside at this point. $60 ago the answer was yes.
Oh snap. Thanks for that info. I guess I could have just looked at today's price. $379 is too rich for my blood. That was definitely a get in by Dec 2016 stock. I'm more of a fan of insane deals like I got on B of A at $3.15 a share.
Might be good for shorting though? I don't do any short selling. I like risk, but not the kind that makes my wife angry.
I did forget to answer this. What if warming temperatures actually cause the increase CO2 we're seeing and not vice versa? We do know that warmer temperatures increase the rate of decomposition, and decomposition releases CO2 and methane among other gases.Suddenly? Was the earth suddenly industrialized? What would be a marker of interest correlating climate impact to pervasiveness of industrialization? Might that graph look like the following if there were a correlation?
I've never been convinced that the resolution of ice core CO2 data is actually high enough to say that the CO2 has never been higher. It's not because I'm denying climate change. Climate change has occurred since the beginning of the earth as a planet. I question it because that's what we should always do in science.
How much CO2 from the atmosphere is actually trapped in ice? How much CO2 is lost from the ice? It isn't a static gas even when dissolved, always moving toward an area of lower concentration. The warming of a cold carbonated beverage easily demonstrates this. How much did the melting and refreezing of the snow that created the ice that is sampled today affect the amount of CO2 in it? Our knowledge in this area is based on models. What if the models are missing something, or lots of somethings? Can we really compare 900,000 year old ice with ice formed in the last 100 years and expect to have enough correlation to make accurate predictions?
What would an ice core sample taken 900,000 years from now show? How much trapped CO2 would be lost or gained in the ice core sample representing today?
Additive CO2 is due to desequestration (I like made that term up) from burning of fossil fuels, that is pretty much proven via simple analysys...
I have no skin in the game regarding ice core samples.
IMO risk analysis dictates, some actions be taken. We focus most discussion on conservation/lifestyle implications when the solution requires technical elements.
Shorting now would be really high risk if you ask me. Musk has money lined up to do a transaction somewhere above $420 a share .The risk is likely around enough seller interest at that level.
Where is the "proof" that the rise in CO2 can be isolated and attributed to the burning of fossil fuels? How are other sources of CO2 ruled out? Correlation doesn't equal causation. Rises in temperature and CO2 during interglacial periods are seen time and time again in the ice core data. What caused the rise in CO2 and temperature during previous interglacial periods when humans weren't burning fossil fuels? Again, how accurate is the data derived from ice core samples? How do we know it's accurate? Is it accurate enough to make solid predictions? Can we accurately predict what ice core data will say about today 900,000 years from now?
One thing I've learned about scientists is that they hate to be wrong, and they certainly don't always work very hard to prove themselves wrong. That's where other scientists come into the equation. The term "climate change denier" is about as inaccurate as you can get when it comes to scientists that disagree with other climate scientists based on their own work. That term is used for a reason, and it isn't based in anything scientific.
If every car owner in the US only drove the most fuel efficient vehicle available starting tomorrow, what impact would that have on CO2 emissions? If every person stopped all unnecessary travel by airplane, what impact would that have? If everyone limited their house size to 250 square feet per occupant, how would that affect it?
What good are technical advancements when people ignore quite a few of them in favor of their lifestyle? Do we need the government to ban fuel inefficient vehicles? Do we need the government to put limits on house size? Do we need the government to ban all power boats not used for commercial purposes? Do we need the government to regulate who can fly and why?
I just read about the "going private at $420 tweet." Was that was a purposeful kick in the balls to everyone who has shorted Tesla stock? I read where short sellers lost about $1.32 billion on that tweet.
Also in science it isn't about being right or wrong. It is about to what degree of certainty can you authoritatively predict based on prior observation and conclusions. {IE, I can tell you that distance is 1 foot in length with a margin of error of .002.}
If they'd reframe the conversation accurately, I'd be more willing to listen. But when scientists speak in non-scientific language; I tend to dismiss them. Start telling me your confidence rating or margin of error and now we can have a real conversation.
Basements are notorious for incubating mold and fungi which pose serious health problems.
The outlook is even worse if we think that global warming is increasing the release of greenhouse gases.
I think the idea of icecores is that trapped CO2 stays trapped unless there is melt and refreeze, which is easy enough to detect.
A simpler solution would be a carbon tax, let the people sort out how much they need that boat/house/flight.
Elon is going to jail unless he turns of his phone when goes on benders.
Believe it or not the scientist actually do speak in scientific language most the time, they just dumb it down for lay people. You can always wade into the actual scientific literature on the subject instead of watch Leo DiCaprio documentaries.
Since we're regaled about the massive melt of the polar ice caps, perhaps the increase in CO2 levels is from melting ice and not industrial activity.
Libs would be in a quandary if you took them to a grow op.
"What's in those huge tanks?"
Your green is pretty f'n far from green.
"What's in those huge tanks?"
Your green is pretty f'n far from green.
First, these things are measurable. Second, if global warming is releasing even more greenhouse gases, then that is an argument in favor of drastic action.
True, but they still need to be precise and accurate when they dumb it down.
How difficult is it to add 'within a reasonable margin of error' when on a talk show?
This name-calling is a key element in my skepticism
That's not logical. If CO2 levels increase following rises in temperature, then it isn't the CO2 that's causing the warming. If the CO2 levels decrease after the temperature decreases, then CO2 isn't maintaining the warmer temperatures.
Of course that's the idea. But how accurate is the idea? Snow isn't compacted into firn until about 50-100 meters of depth. Gas bubbles aren't formed until firn becomes ice. How many years will it take for today's snow to become ice? How much gas movement will occur during those years?
Studies dating back to the birth of ice core sampling don't agree on the level of preservation of ancient air in ice. Assumptions have to be made, models have to be developed, and the models have to be applied. The obvious limitation is that it's impossible to create a control to test the models against. If you can't test your model against a control, how can you know how accurate it is?
How do we determine the dollar consequences to develop the tax? I'm assuming that we're talking a tax on things that are above the minimum necessary carbon emission to achieve the goal (driving, flying, leisure activities, etc). Should the wealthier folks be able to buy the rest of us more man-made climate change? Carbon emissions don't matter if you have the money to pay the associated financial penalty? That sounds like more of the same rather than the simpler solution you called it.
That's assuming that additional CO2 is actually harmful. Do we have anything to compare our planet with to prove that more CO2 is harmful? Or do we only have an assumption that it's harmful to work with?
Yep. It is almost like the perceived damage to the environment isn't real if you can pay a tax to do it.
Land in Puerto Rico was a bad buy unless you also bought a boat. Puerto Rico is going to be underwater when all of the ice melts. It's coming. We're all doomed to Waterworld.
If you drop anchor on your own submerged land, can you yell at every passing boat to get the hell off your lawn?
Or it could be that there was more CO2 around long ago before industrialization. The ice melt is simply releasing what was here long ago when the contributors (cars, people, O&G, and the other boogiemen) to the alleged global warming were significantly less numerous. Tells me that those being blamed are scapegoats and this charade is political and monetary driven.
The thing is that we already know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The science is in on that one you can test it in a lab.
Set an emission goal and raise the carbon tax until you achieve it. Tax is on all fuel (weighted by CO2 produced in combustion) and is redistributed equally to everyone, that way if you use less fuel than the average person, you actually benefit, and if you use more than average you lose. The goal isn't to make everyone a low emitter of CO2 it is to reduce aggregate emissions. If you want to waste your wealth on taking up more of that emission pie than your neighbor, this is America afterall.
We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We don't really have a set up that allows for us to do a planetary controlled experiment. Sometimes when faced with incomplete knowledge the correct move is to follow the precautionary principle.
Again, these are things than can be measured. Your theory is not reality.
