I do think CTAs extend moves somewhat, but it's a secondary effect, especially in products that have liquid trading in the physical and ability to store things (like lumber right now)
Climate change is pushing up food prices — and worrying central banks
- Thread starter Bugsy
- Start date
The guy who self-immolated did so because police confiscated his produce (he didn't have a permit to sell fruit and vegetables).
- Corn Price Will Jump 9% on Rising Asian Demand, Rabobank Says - Bloomberg
- Corn, Soy Will Rise as Prices Haven’t Cut Demand, Rabobank Says - Bloomberg
Info -> Future Price -> Information about positioning and speculation about future info --> Info -> Future Price ... ad infinitum
We're not "disagreeing" with informational parity. You are choosing to believe (1) a paper based upon an assumption about GHG effects that contradicts observable evidence and (2) a theory of cosmic rays that's been disproven both through observable evidence and experiment (CERN 2016).
so when I was looking for my second career. It was a common theme that hedge funds had pushed up the price of chemical commodities. I will try to find some articles on it. This was specific to 2011. I’m not saying the same thing happend in 2021 (which you know I has a second row seat for).
Does such a thing exist? There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the climate has changed dramatically over the past 4.5 billion years!, with absolutely no evidence that it has stopped changing. Logic would suggest that the climate will continue to change but at a slowing pace as the solar system ages, up until the final two to three billion years while our Sun transitions to a death star.
The question being asked by those actively involved in climate research is not whether the climate changes but what are the driving forces. Of course one has to go to the primary literature to be aware of current hypotheses beyond the one anointed by the media. The media has fixated on the CO2 hypothesis as though it were theory. Worse yet the media insists there is already formed an unassailable consensus, as if science had something to do with consensus. (I have read here on ET that it does.
)I have always thought that someone should look again seriously at thermal pollution even though that's been considered and dismissed. One approach taken now is to "correct" land based thermometers for the "urban island effect". The immediate surrounding of virtually all of these thermometers has changed drastically over the last century. Although it's not true, it still seems that no one other than myself has noticed that the urban island effect is on the order of ten degrees whereas the temperature "anomalies" being sought are on the order of tenths of degrees. But never mind. We know our hurricanes are more powerful and more frequent than ever. The Media has told us. And everyone but the photo physicists know this is a fact and it's caused by rising atmospheric CO2. Our only hope is that the physicists will start watching CNN.
Last edited:
Actually the situation with regard to the one paper of Miskolczi I referenced is the opposite of what you state. Miskolczi paper is based on observation data supplied by NOAA which contradicts the theoretical computations.
Again, if you can supply a literature reference or two, it would be much appreciated.
The models have been tested over time and were proven to be BS. Go back and look at Mann's hockey stick.
Hell, Nye's "experiment" in An Inconvenient Truth was proven to have had its results faked in post production.
Instead of admitting any flaws in their thinking, they simply invent more models, insist that they are still right and move doomsday out another 5 years.
Making coin toss predictions like "it will get hotter" or "we'll have more storms" with unspecified dates is not even close to real science.
If you want to deprogram yourself do some reading here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Show me a peer reviewed publication that has proven any of the models "to be BS". Not the standard "yeah, there are possible improvements by adding X" but rather "this stuff is BS". Like I said, I double dare you and so far you're doing about as well as you did in the options-related discussions.
Dude, seriously? I am linking articles from Nature and the best you can do is a blog by some random dude? :eyeroll:
