freediver wrote on Apr 4
th, 2013 at 10:54am:
Quote:But my information comes from a presentation made in Q4 at the American Petroleum Institute in Los Angeles
I see. No chance of bias then?
BTW,
why do you think someone might end up in jail just because they put their money where their mouth is? What makes more sense to you - that they honestly believe what they are saying to the extent they will put their own money behind it, or that they put their own money behind something they know lacks a solid basis in the hope that they can bluster their way to a profit? It's not exactly like the petroleum industry where they had already sunk billions of dollars before the issue came up, and it hardly paints this petroleum industry propaganda in a good light that they are accusing scientists of doing what everyone knows they have been up to.
Because its called 'stacking the deck' and you are directly profiting from warnings made and influencing the market.
When analysts make calls on stock or industry changes, they need to declare their interests.
1. "Scientist" makes alarming calls relating to climate and processes which hinder (coal, shale gas, oil) and that renewable energy is cleaner.
2. If said individual is a direct 'innovator' or monetary beneficiary of a green product or process, he will see a benefit to that directly as a result of his own comments or warnings.
EG,
If an analyst has shares in JP Morgan and then as a 'leading industry commentator' hangs crap on Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo - he stands to benefit from frightened investors running to JP.
It's exactly the same process.
The conference having an hour to have this data presented, merely served to highlight that some of these individuals are not mere by-standers but direct profiteers of their doomsday predictions.
Which is classic stacking the deck.