Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:11 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 158  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3772
Location: Still at the end of the world
Bill wrote:
Wow - Antarctic ice coverage at record levels

Surprised it hasnt been mentioned in the news


This is a thread about the Arctic. If you want to discuss Antarctic ice coverage, why don't you start a new thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3734
easyray wrote:
Bill wrote:
Wow - Antarctic ice coverage at record levels

Surprised it hasnt been mentioned in the news


This is a thread about the Arctic. If you want to discuss Antarctic ice coverage, why don't you start a new thread.

You could call it "Antarctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels". Then you'd be wrong about that one too, which would introduce a nice symmetry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
easyray wrote:
Bill wrote:
Wow - Antarctic ice coverage at record levels

Surprised it hasnt been mentioned in the news


This is a thread about the Arctic. If you want to discuss Antarctic ice coverage, why don't you start a new thread.



antarctic ice coverage has more relevance to arctic ice coverage than commodity prices - which you have been discussing on the previous page - bit hypocritical therefore for you to try and make the antarctic off limits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3772
Location: Still at the end of the world
Bill wrote:
easyray wrote:
Bill wrote:
Wow - Antarctic ice coverage at record levels

Surprised it hasnt been mentioned in the news


This is a thread about the Arctic. If you want to discuss Antarctic ice coverage, why don't you start a new thread.



antarctic ice coverage has more relevance to arctic ice coverage than commodity prices - which you have been discussing on the previous page - bit hypocritical therefore for you to try and make the antarctic off limits


Um, I think you will find that it was Bimbo and zzz discussing commodity prices. But then you never let facts get in the way of a post anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
easyray wrote:
bimboman wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Not really true, my point about the differentials stands. The future is the tail wagging the dog right now.


Futures can't be wagging anything! The whole thing is a wash.


Quote:
Many people on the “speculators did it” side like to point to financial data, especially large purchases of futures by various players. But food is a physical commodity, and plays in the financial markets can only move the price to the extent that they affect physical flows and stocks...how can speculation affect this picture? The answer is, it has to work through accumulation of inventories — physical inventories. If high futures prices induce increased storage, this reduces the quantity available to consumers, and it can raise the price. And you can, in fact, argue that something like this has been happening for cotton and copper, where there are apparently large and growing inventories...My experience in these debates is that the response consists of a blizzard of statistics about the size of forward positions, etc.. But remember, every purchase of a futures contract is also a sale — there’s someone on the other side. And neither the purchase nor the sale changes the physical quantity of the commodity available to the market.



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 ... eculation/



Krugman is missing a point here, the differential is the trade done by the physical trader either Long or short normally against delivery delay or in the case of Soft commodities more importantly quality, these are real One sided trades with the other side effectively being the Physical. an increased level in the Future up s the cost of hedging increasing the over all cost, financing required futures margin etc.


So in plain English, the bankers are still fiddling while the earth burns.



oi! this is a thread about the Arctic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
Hooray! 8)

Quote:
31 August 2012 Last updated at 12:16 Share this pageEmailPrint
ShareFacebookTwitter

Article written byRichard Black
BBC Environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading
This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Krugman is missing a point here, the differential is the trade done by the physical trader either Long or short normally against delivery delay or in the case of Soft commodities more importantly quality, these are real One sided trades with the other side effectively being the Physical


For the third time, no one is talking about physical trades.



Quote:
an increased level in the Future up s the cost of hedging increasing the over all cost, financing required futures margin etc.


Absolute bollocks.

Firstly, and it often gets lost sight of, speculation moves price risk form producers and consumers to speculators - that's the point of the futures market.

Secondly, increased speculation means increased liquidity which means lower margins.

Finally, it’s hard to see how speculation would lead to higher prices. Futures markets are zero sum games. For every person who takes a long position there must, by definition, be another person or group of people who have taken an equal and opposite short position.



fudge me you really do read one opinion and stick with it Ika style. I clearly referred to Physical traders and there use of futures (as you point out for there original intended function).

Growers and physical merchant use futures to hedge there expected deliveries or supplies, there are generally 2 reasons for this, 1; Price risk.
2: Quality differential management.

If you can accept these quite obvious premises you can see that already the seller of the future (or possibly buyer with regard to quality, but in much smaller amounts)

in a perfect Krugman example only food companies would be the other side of these transactions.

Add speculators :

They indeed can narrow a spread above by buying AND selling into the above interest ...... now let imagine they just buy....

prices rise, and rise and rise..... growers forward sell, food producers HAVE to start buying aswell.

Hedge funds buy more ....

Growers are now done at a fwd price. (nice and high) - except they don't get the cash for their physical for 9 months or so... in the mean time they have had to post MARGIN to the futures exchange (around 15% of the trading price), pay brokerage fees, exchange fees etc all a % of the underlying futures price. IE IT COSTS THEM MONEY. As prices keep on rising they have to find more and more money.

Food manufacturers are now the buyer of these futures at a a high price (bad and high passed on to us the consumer), they don't have to pay for 9 months and they recieve the above margin MINUS Initial margin, Trade spread, exchange fee's and that they have to bank the positive margin they are left with at a lower interest rate than the farmer has borrowed at IE HIGH PRICES COST THEM MONEY.....

The hedge funds however only have futures positions as the fee's and margin above rise to high for there trade profit they SELL. hedge funds generally finance at much lower rates than farmers and food producers (spread lost) they are investors in the exchange who is making more profit in fees (spread lost), they trade many millions more futures than the growers and farmers recieving lower margin and exchange fees payable by them (spread lost).

So before you blankly say zero sum game understand that playing the game costs at every stage, the costs are correlated directly to the price of the underlying future, the higher that price the higher the costs.

Also accept that there isn't a natural long/short in the equation, the grower is long and food producer short at the start but the hedge funds are able to re weight this equation at will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14440
I haven't the fudge what you dirty hippies are talking about, Bimbo.

You're ruining Bill's thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
Sefton wrote:
I haven't the fudge what you dirty hippies are talking about, Bimbo.

You're ruining Bill's thread.



I was still reeling from the realisation that zzzz makes me look like Marx.... Bills thread is moot, the science is settled but so is the growth of co2, so now we are looking at mitigating the doom. I intend to do more of the above with money that I have borrowed from your pension and get addled till the end of time drinking Krug... you ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14440
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
I haven't the fudge what you dirty hippies are talking about, Bimbo.

You're ruining Bill's thread.



I was still reeling from the realisation that zzzz makes me look like Marx.... Bills thread is moot, the science is settled but so is the growth of co2, so now we are looking at mitigating the doom. I intend to do more of the above with money that I have borrowed from your pension and get addled till the end of time drinking Krug... you ?

zzzz makes Ron Paul look like a big government interventionist, everything he posts is poisoned by his instinctive distrust of anything that smells of state intervention including the Theory of Climate Change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
I am also planning on lending Bill more buy to let money until I can reposse the lot , I will make his Greek paradise a prize holiday for the bordies Worse Irish winner....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6263
Quote:
fudge me you really do read one opinion and stick with it Ika style


One opinion? You do realise that the idea that futures trading is driving up commodities prices is utterly hetrodox? I used Krugman as a source because of his impeachable leftie credentials but you will struggle to find a serious economist who will disagree with him on this point. This idea begins and ends with the WDC loons.

Quote:
I clearly referred to Physical traders and there use of futures (as you point out for there original intended function).


For the umpteenth time no one is talking about physical trades - the whole criticsm raised by the WDC loons is that purely speculative trading (i.e. where there is no intention to ever make a physical delivery) is driving up price.

Of course physical trading can move market prices - it's a fuckin market and that's what markets do! And of course hedging costs are a cost for producers. And of course those costs can increase or decrease as the price of the underlying changes - including when margin calls are made (which is why you want deep and liquid markets (i.e. more speculation) to reduce those costs). The point is whether increased speculation of itself causes prices to rise. .

If your point is that because hedge funds have lower financing and transactions costs than producers, they have cheaper hedging, so what? The cost of hedging may be higher for producers than their counter-parts but that hedging is still lowering costs for producers and consumers by transferring risk to speculators.


Quote:
Add speculators :

They indeed can narrow a spread above by buying AND selling into the above interest ...... now let imagine they just buy....


This is where your analysis falls apart. You can't have a speculative market comprised only of buyers! For every position, there has to be a counter party.


Quote:
prices rise, and rise...


Why? Of course a rising market causes producers with open positions to have to post more margin, but that is irrelevant to the debate unless you can show that it is the volume of trading that is causing the price rise - which is where we came in.


Quote:
in a perfect Krugman example only food companies would be the other side of these transactions


That is the polar opposite of what Krugan (and pretty much every other economist) assumes when analysing this point.

Quote:
So before you blankly say zero sum game understand that playing the game costs at every stage


Who said it doesn't? Of course changes in price impact costs but, for the umpteenth time, the volume of trading is not changing prices because the effect on pricing of increased trading volume is zero sum.

To repeat. It is not in contention that a changes in market price can impact the hedging costs of producers with an open position. What is in contention is that increased speculation causes those changes in market price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
PHYSICAL TRADERS USING AND TRADING FUTURES YOU plum!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
SPECULATION FROM HEDGE FUNDS IS LIQUID BUT NOT DEEP. THEY GAME THE FUTURES MARKETS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
"This is where your analysis falls apart. You can't have a speculative market comprised only of buyers! For every position, there has to be a counter party. "

I CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT THE MARKET HAS TO HAVE SELLERS IN THE FACT THAT PRODUCERS SELL FORWARD AS A HEDGE, SPECULATORS CAN OF COURSE BE ALL ONE WAY IT IS CALLED A BUBBLE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
IN MODERN FUTURES MARKETS THE SPECUALTION IS 100 TIMES FOR MORE THE SIZE OF THE UNDERLYING TO DENY THAT THAT CHANGES THE PRICE OF SAID UNDERLYING IS PLAINLY f**king STUPID.


YOU CAN HAVE THE MARKET IS ALWAYS RIGHT MANTRA RUNNING AROUND YOUR HEAD IF YOU LIKE BUT IN SOME CASES IT REALLY REALLY ISN'T. MARKETS ARE GAMED, RIGGED, THE COSTS FOR FUNDS BEING LOWER THAN THE REAL USERS OF FUTURES IS SOMETIMES ENOUGH TO TIP THE REALITY OF A PRICE AWAY FROM IT'S TRUE VALUE. THIS IS OF COURSE DISCOUNTING THAT THE FUNDS ARE AIMING TO SCREW THE MARKET IN EXACTLY THAT WAY.

THE BOOM IN COMMODITY PRICING IS AS MUCH A BOOM CAUSED BY LOW INTEREST RATES AS ANY OTHER ECONOMIC FACTOR. LOOK AT THE ROLE OF LOW INTEREST RATES IN CARRY TRADES THEN THINK AGAIN ABOUT WHETHER FUTURES TRADING AFFECT THE PRICE OF AN UNDERLYING ASSET.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 pm
Posts: 391
Location: AGM, Association for Bringing Down Statues
Don't do that - you'll give Billbo Ballbaggins an idea


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6263
Quote:
IN MODERN FUTURES MARKETS THE SPECUALTION IS 100 TIMES FOR MORE THE SIZE OF THE UNDERLYING TO DENY THAT THAT CHANGES THE PRICE OF SAID UNDERLYING IS PLAINLY f**king STUPID


This is heart of the debate.

I think you are talking complete crap. Food is a physical commodity, and plays in the financial markets can only move the price to the extent that they affect physical flows and stocks. Fortunately, the guys with Noble prizes who study this shit for a living agree with me. As far as I am aware this is one of the few points on which you could get polar opposites like Krugman and Manikw into a room and expect them to be in agreement. Now you can play the shouty phone monkey all you like but it just makes you another trader who can't see the woods for the leaf.



As for the rest...

Quote:
YOU CAN HAVE THE MARKET IS ALWAYS RIGHT MANTRA RUNNING AROUND YOUR HEAD IF YOU LIKE BUT IN SOME CASES IT REALLY REALLY ISN'T


What the hell are you talking about? Nothing I have said can be equated to that position.

Quote:
THE COSTS FOR FUNDS BEING LOWER THAN THE REAL USERS OF FUTURES IS SOMETIMES ENOUGH TO TIP THE REALITY OF A PRICE AWAY FROM IT'S TRUE VALUE.


Leaving aside the elephant in the room about what a "true value" is, this point is utterly irrelevant to this debate. No where have I argued that commodities prices are a true price or that the availability of leverage can't affect asset prices. This is purely a debate about the extent to which speculative trading is pushing food prices up.

Quote:
LOOK AT THE ROLE OF LOW INTEREST RATES IN CARRY TRADES THEN THINK AGAIN ABOUT WHETHER FUTURES TRADING AFFECT THE PRICE OF AN UNDERLYING ASSET.


For the last time: food is a physical commodity etc. Why are you crapping on about the carry trade?


I give up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15724
bimboman wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A drought is not necessarily the only product of global warming. Quite the reverse, storms can also be a symptom.



Yeah but bad storms no thte good ones.... Keep up Ted.



Or just more of them. Do keep up chappy, there's a good lad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15724
Oh look, a meltdown. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31972
Location: in transit
Bimboman's going the full goo goo gaa gaa at last, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15724
guy smiley wrote:
Bimboman's going the full goo goo gaa gaa at last, eh?



I have no idea about such things, but I licked my finger and thrust it up in to the air. The resulting data is irrefutable, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ is clearly wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 760
zzzz wrote:
I give up.

That's it? It was that easy all along? All I had to do was go Sun Tsu instead of all that reasoning...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 36969
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
IN MODERN FUTURES MARKETS THE SPECUALTION IS 100 TIMES FOR MORE THE SIZE OF THE UNDERLYING TO DENY THAT THAT CHANGES THE PRICE OF SAID UNDERLYING IS PLAINLY f**king STUPID


This is heart of the debate.

I think you are talking complete crap. Food is a physical commodity, and plays in the financial markets can only move the price to the extent that they affect physical flows and stocks. Fortunately, the guys with Noble prizes who study this shit for a living agree with me. As far as I am aware this is one of the few points on which you could get polar opposites like Krugman and Manikw into a room and expect them to be in agreement. Now you can play the shouty phone monkey all you like but it just makes you another trader who can't see the woods for the leaf.



As for the rest...

Quote:
YOU CAN HAVE THE MARKET IS ALWAYS RIGHT MANTRA RUNNING AROUND YOUR HEAD IF YOU LIKE BUT IN SOME CASES IT REALLY REALLY ISN'T


What the hell are you talking about? Nothing I have said can be equated to that position.

Quote:
THE COSTS FOR FUNDS BEING LOWER THAN THE REAL USERS OF FUTURES IS SOMETIMES ENOUGH TO TIP THE REALITY OF A PRICE AWAY FROM IT'S TRUE VALUE.


Leaving aside the elephant in the room about what a "true value" is, this point is utterly irrelevant to this debate. No where have I argued that commodities prices are a true price or that the availability of leverage can't affect asset prices. This is purely a debate about the extent to which speculative trading is pushing food prices up.

Quote:
LOOK AT THE ROLE OF LOW INTEREST RATES IN CARRY TRADES THEN THINK AGAIN ABOUT WHETHER FUTURES TRADING AFFECT THE PRICE OF AN UNDERLYING ASSET.


For the last time: food is a physical commodity etc. Why are you crapping on about the carry trade?


I give up.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 274
Location: Over at the Frankenstein place
I always knew that extreme free market capitalism would consume itself eventually.

Now that it has come to pass, let us concentrate on building a strong One World Government.
There shall be jelly, ice-cream and carbon offsets for all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3772
Location: Still at the end of the world
Mad-Scientist wrote:
I always knew that extreme free market capitalism would consume itself eventually.

Now that it has come to pass, let us concentrate on building a strong One World Government.
There shall be jelly, ice-cream and carbon offsets for all.


And don't forget the doughnuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Krugman is missing a point here, the differential is the trade done by the physical trader either Long or short normally against delivery delay or in the case of Soft commodities more importantly quality, these are real One sided trades with the other side effectively being the Physical


For the third time, no one is talking about physical trades.



Quote:
an increased level in the Future up s the cost of hedging increasing the over all cost, financing required futures margin etc.


Absolute bollocks.

Firstly, and it often gets lost sight of, speculation moves price risk form producers and consumers to speculators - that's the point of the futures market.

Secondly, increased speculation means increased liquidity which means lower margins.

Finally, it’s hard to see how speculation would lead to higher prices. Futures markets are zero sum games. For every person who takes a long position there must, by definition, be another person or group of people who have taken an equal and opposite short position.


The evidence is in fact the other way, that an active derivatives market dampens volatility and therefore lowers prices in a rising market... which is an effect, just not the one of current mythology.

None of which has anything to do with the left or right of politics. There's a view held by economists based on measurements of markets, and a view held by politicians who require the appearance of actions they can be seen to be taking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56465
"Fortunately, the guys with Noble prizes who study this shit for a living agree with me"


But not about climate change eh zzzz. Blimey good scientist/bad scientist ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6263
Groucho


Quote:
The evidence is in fact the other way, that an active derivatives market dampens volatility


- Would def agree with that. The whole point of the futures markets is to lower volatility by bringing forward pricing adjustments.

I do think speculation is helping avoid large scale market adjustment, and those large adjustments could have driven commodities prices much higher but its a tough to prove counter-factual.

Bimbo

Quote:
But not about climate change eh zzzz. Blimey good scientist/bad scientist ....


I think my position on climate change is a little more nuanced than you give it credit for - and I think the views amongst climate scientists about key issues like attribution and forcing are a bit more varied than some would have you believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
towny wrote:
Silver, don't you understand that you are able to separate the science from the suggested remedies?

What exactly is your argument? You seem to spin all over the place and blindly lurch from one attack to another.

You don't like the science? Based on what?

You don't like the taxation? Just say so.

You think this the whole thing is a con to consolidate the power with the ruling elite?? You're insane!!! The 'ruling elite' are the precise people who are paying for the websites you are getting your 'information' from.


You are seriously being deluded here mate. Please, please, please, have a look around and look at who's pulling your strings!! Really rich people involved in old industries like energy; i.e. the RULING ELITE!!


I would sooner you just ignored my post. For the reason given above. But you are seriously out of you depth on this subject.



:lol:

Mate, you mightn't be aware of it, however just last week I completely schooled the entire oz PR 'left' wing. The very same individuals which smash you on each and every thread. They came at me and were destroyed for 7 straight days. So dominant was my display, that they now refer thread argument domination as TOWNED!!!

So, you're a ridiculous loon and a proven intellectual light weight. I lose more IQ points having a shit than you possess. I was accepted into all the good schools due to my proven brains. I've never lost a single game on Trivial Pursuit in the history of my life. My trivia-night skills are legendary; I once heard a girl from another team say to one of my gloating team mates after a victory, "but you had Towny on your team". I get paid really good money to fly around drinking beer and coffee with Oil & Gas companies who flock to me like the salmon of Capistrono. I sit on PR for most of each day and still get my job done to high regard and general acclaim.

should I continue?



I'm a really, really, really smart person.


Tell me again about my depth plum and how exactly am I out of it.



btw, you just got f**king TOWNED plum!!! You like that shit?


Get your hand off your dick you twat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
bimboman wrote:
I am also planning on lending Bill more buy to let money until I can reposse the lot , I will make his Greek paradise a prize holiday for the bordies Worse Irish winner....



rents are holding up very well - plus adhering to the old adage 'out of debt out of danger' makes one bomb proof regarding repossession, recession, divorce etc a nuclear war involving the uk is about the only thing that could upset the apple cart

Antarctic ice coverage looking decidedly healthy btw - record breaking healthy, has no relevance at all apparently though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 pm
Posts: 391
Location: AGM, Association for Bringing Down Statues
The longer this thread drags on the more convinced I become that Bill is a bot of some kind. In fact I think I could write his algorithm in about 100 lines of code, it wouldn't be complicated as it ignores almost everything that it doesn't understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
well,well,well......................unprecedented melt hey?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
6roucho wrote:
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image



Pointless I suppose explaining to you that the Arctic has been ice free all year round before?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image



Pointless I suppose explaining to you that the Arctic has been ice free all year round before?


When?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6408
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image



Pointless I suppose explaining to you that the Arctic has been ice free all year round before?


When?



during inter glacials - bit like the one we are in now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image



Pointless I suppose explaining to you that the Arctic has been ice free all year round before?


When?



during inter glacials - bit like the one we are in now


The Arctic hasn't been ice free all year round since the world started having ice and winters.

Edit: that was ~45m years ago when the Arctic ice cap first formed.


Last edited by 6roucho on Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5110
Location: NZ
Arctic sea ice volume reconstruction for August is out...

Image



It's a record low, of course. It's shocking to compare the current value (red line) with the black line from 2007. The ice volume has fallen to less than half of what was then the record low in 2007. And 2007 was supposed to have been the really alarming year, where ice extent and area hit record lows by a large margin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6327
Location: Plum
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Yes Bill, the current melt is far beyond those levels.

Image



Pointless I suppose explaining to you that the Arctic has been ice free all year round before?


When?



during inter glacials - bit like the one we are in now


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 158  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alba, BillW, Cullen, danny_fitz, DragsterDriver, Farva, Flockwitt, Google Adsense [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, Jensrsa, jethanger, Leinster in London, Leinsterman, Lemoentjie, Morgan14, Mr Mike, Mr. Very Popular, my 2 cents, ovalball, Paul_, Rowdy, themaddog, toweliechaos, Winnie, wreckthehouse and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group