Yesterday your editor had an appointment in town with the MD of a small Australian oil and gas explorer.
That’s why we weren’t able to grace you with our presence in Money Morning yesterday, although as we’ve noted, Shae more than ably filled in the gap with her article on credit cards.
The company in question was interesting because it was, well, uninteresting. Over the past year or so as editor of Australian Small Cap Investigator, we’ve looked at a lot of energy companies.
We’ve mainly concentrated on the natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
And in terms of natural gas, we’ve narrowed that down further by looking at unconventional natural gas plays, such as coal seam gas (CSG).
But let’s be honest, over the last few months we haven’t been the only ones looking at unconventional gas and oil stocks. Everyone’s been doing it.
That’s why when we heard from this company, and we heard that they were just doing the ‘conventional’ thing, I thought it was worth taking a look.
And as I’ve been starting to think recently, there are a lot of smaller conventional oil and gas stocks out there that are being overlooked. And this one was no exception. Because investors are looking for something unique, sometimes the easy pickings are ignored.
Unfortunately, due to the tiny market cap and low liquidity it’s a stock I just can’t tip for Australian Small Cap Investigator, not even in the ultra-speculative ‘Radioactive‘ section of the portfolio.
So, for the time being that one just gets added to the watchlist for future reference. If we miss out on a decent return, that’s just the way it is. You can’t back every runner on the market.
But all that’s just an aside. I thought I’d return to the subject of the Copenhagen Conference today given the amount of feedback received into the Money Morning mailbag on Wednesday.
Climate change is obviously a very emotional issue. It’s one of those subjects that most people seem to have one opinion or another. Very few sit on the fence.
Either you believe it or you don’t. And even those that aren’t sure whether it’s real tend to believe something should be done, just to be on the safe side.
That’s one of the great things about the Money Morning mailbag. We write something in an article and before we know it floods of responses arrive. Some agree, some disagree, some ask us to unsubscribe and “stop sending me this rubbish.“
We get all sorts of comments.
It’s a good job we’ve got a thick skin otherwise we wouldn’t last a day in this job. Either that or we’d get intimidated into writing the kind of pap you read in the mainstream press.
But have no fear, that’ll never happen!
Anyway, the most received email we got this week was a link to an interview of Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley by Alan Jones on Sydney’s 2GB.
If you’re interested you can listen to the whole thing here.
What do we make of it?
Well, according to Monckton – sorry Lord Monckton, the Copenhagen Conference is just an excuse for Western nations to create a world government and will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the West to the developing world…
Hold on, don’t go yet. I know what you’re thinking, “conspiracy theory nutbags.” But let me carry this through to the end before you jump to conclusions.
Do we believe what Lord Monckton has to say? Well, it’s hard to disbelieve him when we haven’t seen the document that he claims he’s seen.
Lord Monckton claims he’s seen a copy of the Treaty that all the attendees of the Copenhagen Conference will sign. A treaty that will result in a world government and a huge cost to Western nations. And more specifically, a huge cost to Western taxpayers.
But right there is where we have a problem with Lord Monckton’s claims. Whether he’s right or wrong we’ll soon find out when the Conference Treaty is released.
The problem we have is the same problem we always have when someone claims to have seen a document but fails to produce it.
I mean, let’s think logically about this. If you had managed to get your hands on such a bombshell of a document my guess is you’d do all you could to get a copy of it and distribute it. Or better still, sell it.
Surely even the mainstream press would pay handsomely for such a document.
Think about it, the exclusivity of this so-called document is fairly limited. Within the next few weeks, if it exists, it will be published. For Lord Monckton to claim that he’s seen it but is unable to provide a copy of it, sets alarm bells ringing.
We’re not claiming he’s telling a big fat pork pie, but without producing the document we can’t lend any support to his claim.
But that’s not to say that everything the man says should be completely disregarded. Perhaps a more impressive and more compelling case from him is his argument against Climate Change.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve got no idea whether climate change is genuine or not.
Even after I’ve done all my ‘edumacating’ on the subject over the next few weeks, odds are we’ll only be slightly more knowledgeable than we are now. And even that’s not guaranteed!
But regardless of all that, the important thing is to question whatever someone says. Including whatever your editor writes. You can see that many people do that on the Money Morning message board – agreeing or disagreeing with what we write.
That is something to be encouraged. And questioning the science of climate change and the motives of those who believe it and disbelieve it should also be encouraged.
For years former US Presidential candidate failure Al Gore has swanned around the world like a rock star. He’s been wined and dined by presidents and prime ministers. He’s held lavish lunches and dinners costing hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend.
And through all that he’s received very little opposition. The business of Climate Change is massive and so are the pressure groups behind it. Stand in the way of it at your peril.
That’s why the politicians prefer to go with the flow and back him to the hilt.
That’s why there’s very little opposition to what Gore says. Surely it can’t be a good thing for everyone to blindly follow the climate change messiah Al Gore.
That’s why I believe it’s worth looking at something else. In this case it’s something else from Lord Monckton. Again, I’m not saying he’s right. I’ve got no idea whether his arguments are any more valid than those of Gore.
But it’s at least worth checking out what he’s got to say isn’t it? I think so anyway.
After all, I’m always pretty certain that before I read an article by Michael Pascoe or Ross Gittins or Paul Krugman that I’ll disagree with them. But I still read their claptrap. Mainly because it reinforces my own thoughts.
And so after watching Lord Monckton’s presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute (MFMI), I’ll admit it did help to reinforce my thoughts.
Not that I blindingly agree with everything he says. And not that I don’t believe in Climate Change. But rather that there is more to the story than governments and pressure groups are letting on. Again, we’re not talking whacko conspiracy theories here, we’re talking logic.
Anyway, if you click here you’ll go through to Youtube where you can view the full one hour and thirty-five minutes from Lord Monckton, the 3rd Viscount ‘Chinless Wonder.’
The point is, if half, in fact if one-tenth of what Lord Monckton says is true about how governments and government agencies have manipulated the data on climate change then this is a genuine bombshell.
Yet as Lord Monckton states in his presentation, we shouldn’t believe him just because he says he’s right. Just as we shouldn’t believe Al Gore and his cronies just because they say they’re right.
But what Lord Monckton’s presentation does provide is a useful counterpoint. Because what we can do as a neutral observer is take both arguments and work out whether each of them is telling some truths or whether each of them is telling some lies.
If we do the research and it turns out that Lord Monckton is manipulating the data then it clearly weakens his anti-climate change argument, and potentially – but not necessarily – strengthens the argument of Al Gore’s camp.
And likewise if it turns out Lord Monckton is right, that data has been manipulated by governments and their agencies then it strengthens his case and weakens that or Gore.
The one fly in the ointment for Lord Monckton’s MFMI presentation is the last two minutes where he brings up the ‘World Government’ theory again. You’d think after all the effort and research he’s put in to try and destroy the claims of climate changers that he could manage to photocopy the so-called treaty that leaders will sign in Copenhagen.
Maybe Lord Monckton is right on both counts. We don’t know. But right now, we’re more impressed with his arguments against climate change (although we’re still neutral) than we are with his arguments about a World Government.
Although, when you consider that it’s taken Europe fifty years to get to the current stage of a European Government, it should be remembered these things don’t happen overnight.
And the idea that politicians and bureaucrats have an urge to club together to control everyone shouldn’t be discounted either.
Anyway, we’ll give Lord Monckton some credit though. At least he’s making things interesting by stirring the pot. And making an attempt to get the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats here and overseas to account for their actions.
While he’s embarked on that real noble cause, we’ll continue with our reading up on the Copenhagen Conference.
Cheers.
Kris.
60-Second Market Round Up
by Shae Smith
The S&P/ASX200 had a pretty ordinary day yesterday, closing down by 9 points to 4,747.90.
Most of the mining stocks closed up. BHP Billiton [ASX: BHP] was up by 1.15% and Newcrest [ASX: NCM] up by 25 points. But the major banks all closed in the red. The employment data for October did little to boost the Aussie market yesterday. Read more here.
On Wall Street the Dow Jones Industrial Average was apparently showing signs of ‘rally fatigue‘ one analyst said. The Dow closed down to 10,197.47, a drop of 93 points. The US dollar strengthened against 14 of the 16 major currencies which added to the decline in commodity prices overnight.
In the UK the FTSE100 finished up yesterday despite the weak open on Wall Street. The index closed at 5,276.50, up by 0.19%.
The Nikkei dropped 0.68%, closing to 9,804.49
The price of gold in Australian dollars is trading at $1,196.06, while in US Dollars it is trading at $1,103.20. And the price of silver in Aussie dollars is $18.67 and in US Dollars it’s $17.22.
The Aussie dollar versus the US dollar is trading at USD$0.9228, and against the Japanese Yen JPY83.38
Crude oil closed overnight at USD$76.76
For the biggest movers on the market yesterday click here…
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
All the above are correct.
Turnbull has turned out to be a turncoat.
Our only hope is the Senate.
If any ETS is approved it will be taken by Rudd as an endorsement of his policy.
He will then claim that signing the COT agreement was the wish of the people.
That the ETS is only a shadow of the COT15 Agreement is neat because it hides the real significance of the Agreement.
Al Gore has a lot to answer for. His film is full of misrepresentation. But neatly packaged to appeal to the ‘sheep’.
The important question now is how do we get the message out?
Failing to do so will lead to catastrophe.
A strong economic base is the basis for advanced research into alternatives.
Impoverishing the West achieves nothing but limits its ability to respond to REAL challenges.
Socialist world govt is never the domain of the poor. It is the game of the hegemonist. You really think Rockefeller or any of the blue blood democrats or Eurocrats pushing for it give a toss? This Lord Monckton is running the strawman. Climate change is just another way to cement a fraying hegemony, that doesn’t mean that world govt aspirations are on the backburner even if those who relish it publicly deride it.
Please type FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 in your search engine and voila the draft treaty as requested.
Maybe i was too slow for the rest of you with this documents?
I’m as suspicious of big-government wielding the global regulation and central planning stick as much as the next guy, but seriously Kris – how do you actually expect to address the issue of climate change (a “tragedy of the commons” of truly global proportion) with an instrument other than attempting to achieve governmental consensus, workable regulation and carrot-and-stick style incentive schemes to encourage major changes in behaviour.
I used to enjoy receiving your daily email but lately I’ve begun to wonder whether it’s been hijacked by a hick from Montana who believes aliens and the UN are going to subjugate us all. Spare me the guns ‘n ammo routine. It seems your “solution” to the problem is to adopt do-nothing laissez-faire; markets dominated by powerful incumbents with lots to lose (big oil etc) will happily fiddle on while Rome burns.
Agree?
DH, your post is so full of pre programmed regurgitated rhetoric it makes me want to beat my head against a wall. The “issue” of “Climate Change” aka “Global warming”, (which was conveniently ditched when they realised that the planet is no longer warming and that we are entering a cooling phase as per the NATURAL CYCLES of a dynamic rock hurtling through space around a ball of thermo nuclear fire) is a calculated and planned hoax, perhaps the biggest ever perpetuated on our species. You would be doing yourself a favour to take a step back and see that you are being conned. A good place to start reading would be the “The First Global Revolution” by the Club of Rome [http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html]. In this document the Club of Rome, (whos member list is a whos who of corrupt globalists, including Al Gore) they state:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Did you get that? “WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA” in other words, they made it up. There is no anthropogenic climate change, there is just climate change, as there has and always will be, with or without your SUV or coal fired power. You need to turn off your TV and wake up. The tired arguments about big oil this and big polluter that are bunk. Just do a google search about how the CEO of Exxon advocated the emissions trading scheme, theyre all on board, and you are being duped by the very sophisticated con game which controls both sides. Don’t mean to sound harsh here, but you need to start thinking for yourself and stop parroting everything you see on TV. If you want a real environmental cause to get behind, do something about our poisoned water supply, genetically engineered food or vaccines which are infesting us with cancer and causing mass sterilisation, they are the real threats to humanity and unlike climate change they are man made.
@animatron .. I see that you have put together perhaps the most devoid of fact and nonsensical rebuttal to a statement that I can recall reading anywhere in quite a long time.
I particularly love how you are comfortably able to assert (from your no-doubt global warming nobel laureate armchair) that: “There is no anthropogenic climate change, there is just climate change, as there has and always will be, with or without your SUV or coal fired power. You need to turn off your TV and wake up.” May I enquire as to your specific scientific background since you claim to have ruled out anthroprogenic climate change? Have you conducted any independent research yourself on this topic – or are you simply repeating the ambit claims of your preferred TV network? (Fox, no doubt)!
I will give Kris his due, at least he didn’t claim to know the answer to the climate science question, and nor do I, despite a degree in Physics completed around ten years ago. I am not a climate expert and I suspect you are not one either.
To reiterate, the central argument in my posting was not even specifically a climate-related one. It was the question of how Kris would propose to address a (potential, if you prefer) issue of global scale and proportion, one with economic tragedy of the commons written all over it, using anything other than an attempt at global consensus. The further question is what vehicle other than inter-governmental agreement can achieve such a consensus? I note these questions do not appear to have been addressed. I don’t think the answer can be the laissez-faire “free market” that got us here in the first place, and performed so admirably over the course of the last 24 months as to require several trillion dollars in direct financial assistance (bail-outs) and indirect assistance (cash drops and QE).
Finally, for the record, I don’t watch a great deal of TV at all. I certainly can’t recall the last time I saw an extended programme on climate science. My opinions, whether you choose to agree with them or otherwise, are most assuredly my own.
Well DH – wonder what that stands for (:
As a scientist who has been involved with computers for many years and has lectured at university level in simulations studies and information systems let me put my view. By the way what is your qualification in this debate. Note, we are having a debate – KRudd would not like that.
Prof Plimer has written a book with thousands of in text references. Lord Monckton has woken us up to the Global Government agenda – the document is available see next Money Morning. Al Gore and other warmists have refused to debate the topic anywhere.
We now know, courtesy of a courageous whistleblower, that the CRU – the main protagonist claiming scientific credibility – that their data was adjusted, improved, boosted, added to, corrupted, and in every way fiddled to support an unproved opinion. I would not even give it hypothesis status. Their aim? To get more funding from government; likewise other unworthy science establishments around the planet.
Having been paid to do particular research based on an unproved opinion that CO2 was the cause of supposed planet warming. Guess what? They continued the gravey (misspelt on purpose – mop) train. It seems they are unaware that CO2 is life and we are creatures of carbon.
Then surprise, surprise, we find that Australia and New Zealand climatoologist (mop) have been massaging as well – with KRudd’s financial help no doubt.
So we have a department dedicated to the environment that does not investigate the supposed link between CO2 and a warming planet – a planet subject to constant climate change in a period when the real records show little if any warming. Is that real or what? Money sunk into this charade is money lost that could have gone into real technical research to advance this country.
Now this Treaty if signed lumbers this country – present and future generations with a HUGE liability which is all justified by Carbon debt. Before we accept that liability would you not expect the government to show some reluctance and do some primary research? Not this mob because there is another agenda – World Government a la Gorbachev and his ilk. Use those keywords plus ‘climate’ in a browser.
Here in WA we had a referendum about daylight saving; the Australian people don’t get a referendum to commit our children to slavery under the New World Order. Does that seem reasonable.
Why have no newspapers revealed the Treaty conditions so the public can begin to understand the depth of KRudd’s deceit?
Question everything!
Thank you moneymorning.
← Previous Comments