Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
do you really have to ask???...global warming, multinational concern, scientific studies (politicians like them), ...need for emissions reduction...
Some Experts Blast Latest Climate Report
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP
WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) - Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version.
Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:
They "don't take into account the gorillas - Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."
Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming , has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.
The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.
Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.
That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.
After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.
The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.
The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.
The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.
"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."
In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.
But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year - twice the rate it was losing in 1996.
Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."
University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.
Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say. The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments - including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia - and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.
Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."
I think we are a little off topic here lately...see what the lack of PR's do...c'mon savi, give us something to talk about.
P and P, hopefully she works real hard at fishing and becomes a master baiter.
Maybe he is right, the end is near...
Actually it seemed like I was writing something for a week straight and then it has left such a hole in my life not actively posting for the last several days.
Its just a quiet time here with savi, waiting, waiting...for next round of test results...who knows what else.
17% up ...let's have that everyday for a few weeks and I'd be happier...
Boy, what a boring post...maybe he is correct....
where is Gorden G. or that bikini babe??
zzzzzzzzzzzz....been boring lately...
except UN report coming next week...
I have no idea FL...and thanks, it is getting interesting...nothing much in the state of the union for our world of saviland.
Wow, the suits are hot...as a matter of fact I will be engaging in some lustful activities with that model later today...too bad she won't be here to enjoy it...
Hows that for a good post?? Go SVMI!!
true, the point is emissions reduction but some opinions like to point out both and some focus on the negatives. It's all good though, we need to hear all sides, makes for a healthy debate and doesn't turn this into a pumper board.
my opinion is that former management put out some incredible numbers that are now tough to live up to. Since we can't turn back the clock, we can only hope that the current management provides PR's that are fact based...even if it is not what we want to hear.
I think that additional testing is being performed and we need to wait for those results. Reducing emissions by 5% in a brand new engine is marginal at best....we need to see what the tests show for 3-5-10 year old engines...then we will have a better idea of what we should name this ship...could be either the starship enterprise or the titanic...at this point your guess is as good as anybodies...
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits...
When toachie first came to this board he was friendly...but quickly turned...?????
Step by step is (hopefully) how it goes for start-ups...step by step...to quote DFW...if you want a guarentee, by a TV.
SaVi Media Group Receives Registered Trademark for "DynoValvePro(R)"
Market Wire
SANTA ANA, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/23/07 -- SAVI MEDIA GROUP, INC. (OTCBB: SVMI) announces that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Trademark registration of one of its core pollution reduction devices, the DynoValvePro®. The registration number for the DynoValvePro® is number 3173466. The trademark was officially effective on November 21, 2006.
"We are very pleased to receive this registration number from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for our DynoValvePro® product. Our newly registered trademark now protects, enhances and strengthens our DynoValvePro product on a long term basis," stated Steve Botkin, Chief Information Officer of SaVi Media Group, Inc.
I watched most of the cspan program...from what I listened to we are in the right place at the right time...the only thing missing is a product...
But I think the important message is that more and more people/companies/politicians are realizing that something must be done regarding pollution...and this group is meeting with bipartison leadership to enact legislation/laws that are fair and obtainable.
They have a "step" program of goals in terms of emissions and the first one is to not increase from today's levels, then a 0-10% reduction, then 10-20% reduction...with decades as a time frame.
I believe (opinion) that should the next round of testing on engines currently in use (not brand new ones) show at least a 10% reduction in emissions with any milage benefit...then that will be very welcomed...of course 15-20% reduction will be better...and yes, this is me just speculating...still waiting to see.
**Breaking News** Ten Major U.S. Companies Join Environmental Defense and Others to Endorse Mandatory Limits on America's Global Warming Pollution.
Watch press conference live this morning on CSPAN at 11:30am Eastern.
Dear Friend,
Major U.S. businesses support national global warming action.
Read more.
I want to share with you some exciting and truly historic news on our campaign to stop global warming.
This morning, ten major U.S. businesses and four national environmental organizations issued a joint report, A Call to Action (pdf file), calling on the federal government to quickly pass strong national legislation to cut global warming pollution.
You can watch the press conference live this morning on CSPAN at 11:30am Eastern. You will also be able to watch it online at CSPAN.org.
The companies involved in today's announcement are well-known Fortune 500 corporations: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, Florida Power and Light, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources.
They have joined Environmental Defense, the World Resources Institute, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and Natural Resources Defense Council to form an unprecedented alliance — the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP).
In today's announcement, the partners pledged to work together to support six recommendations for national action:
Account for the global dimensions of climate change – the U.S. government should become more involved in international agreements to fight global warming;
Recognize the importance of technology – the cost-effective deployment of existing energy efficient technologies should be a priority;
Be environmentally effective – establish a mandatory cap that guarantees emissions will be cut and other measures to facilitate reaching the needed targets;
Create economic opportunity and advantage – a climate protection program must use the power of the market to establish clear targets and timeframes;
Be fair – global warming solutions must account for the disproportionate impact of both global warming and emissions reductions on some economic sectors, geographic regions, and income groups; and
Encourage early action – prior to the effective date of mandatory pollution limits, every reasonable effort should be made to reduce emissions.
This unique cooperation of business and environmental leaders sends a clear signal to Congress: legislative action to cut America's global warming pollution is urgently needed.
Environmental Defense is thrilled to have played a role in building this unprecedented partnership and will look to take full advantage of the added momentum this brings to our efforts to pass meaningful global warming legislation this year.
For more on this announcement, go to our website.
Our work to fight global warming is made possible through the support of our dedicated members and online activists. I cannot thank you enough for your tremendous support.
I look forward to working with you as the 110th Congress begins to debate global warming and moves to enact the mandatory caps we need to cut emissions. This will be the test of this Congress on the top environmental priority of our generation.
Sincerely,
Fred Krupp
President
Extended Hours as of 09:26 AM EST on 01/22/07
0.004 +0.00 (+5.26%)
I joked about after hours trading the other day and look what this says this morning...can't believe it...can't be a bad thing if trading in extended hours to the plus side...but...
For all the recent discussion....this is an emissions reduction device...any benefit to fuel economy is a bonus.
We need to wait for the next round of testing to see if there is going to be anything to this company and it's (maybe) product.
We are all speculating with our ideas here...some delusional good ones...and some angry bad ones....the truth is none of us knows which way it will ultimately go.
For all the negative posters: so far you are right...yes, you are correct as of now. Most of us are down, some are out...but it ain't over til the fat lady sings.
Look at the bright side,,,,if nothing comes to market and we go to .00000 ... some of us will have a few million pieces of 8.5x11 toilet paper.
berry,
Of course i am in the red, like most here...but this is and always has been a gamble...I can live with any outcome, although I would prefer to make some money.
I do understand the entertainment value so good answer...not that my opinion matters.
I am hoping the new mngmt can steer this ship back onto course...but if not...I might hire those ladies I refered to for that entertainment value...at least then I won't mind getting scr%ed for the money...(dont really hire pro's, btw)
PS: nice volume today...I wonder what it'll do in after hours trading...lol...being such a hot stock.
Also, I am delusional as well, i actually do believe we will see some production here at some point with some sales...hopefully I'm not dead by then.
actually you did include all of us in your "big loser" post...and maybe you are correct regarding our investment here...
I would think that as a successful business man you would be more diplomatic, thats all. Other than to pump your own ego (and I wonder why you need to do that) what benefit do you get out of this nonsense?
As a successful business man...what is your return on investment (of your time)??
You want to post? Fine, of course you can do what you want..it still is America (although you do need a passport to get in and out of Miami).
Anyway, it would be nice after a favorable svmi NEWS item (not just PR), if we ever gain some positive direction...to have you back as a shareholder and then we can all meet up at the party, drink too much and slug it out wearing $100 bills for gloves. Now that would be a great party. Of course I won't be sluggin with you, I'll be with my ladies looking for some extra fluids to rehydrate me after all their lovin'.
then why r u here berry? you dont need us and we dont want you.
you clearly have a business that's doing well and other investments to keep you busy, why do you waste your time, and ours, with all this. who cares who can beat each other up? really, who cares? opposing views are always welcome...never hurts to listen to a different opinion...but your posts rarely have anything to do with savi, i think that is LJK's point...why do you bother??
Another rollar coaster day...sure is a wild ride. Kinda wish we could just get to the destination so I know if I should hand in my resignation or request for execution...lol. (no, I wont go broke if I loose all i have here, but the upside is tremendous)...where did i leave my meds??
I sent an email to Gregg Sweeney a few weeks ago. I did not mention it here at all. The next day DFW writes and says "Mike, Gregg got your email and it is being discussed"....something along those lines. He must be in contact with them otherwise how would he have known about the email???
post 6962 DFW uses the word bankruptcy.
We are all a bit crazy to be here at all...I tend to be positive to the point of being delusional...is 250,000 shares worth $875?? Thats it at 0035...
Same old thing...wait and see...
What is happening? Anybody know why this is plunging??
I would hate RS...for the record.
At least drop the 30 and 40%...I wonder concerning a RS...wouldn't the number of shares potentially going to cornell remain the same? Making a RS only really effect us and have overall limited effect?
Wouldn't the agreement have to include something to the effect that we will issue you warrants good for x amount of shares, blah, blah, and in the evnt of a RS then your warrants are divided by that RS ratio?? Seems to me we all would get RS'd but the warrants would still represent the same # of shares even after RS (when converted after the RS)...if we somehow had a forward split 2:1 (hypothetical for arguement) would the warrants be then worth double the # in the agreement???
My thinking is that a RS in the current situation would be a waste of time and without effecting future shares due cornell wouldn't change much.
Bottom line - production - sales/revenue - buy out cornell to stop the bleeding - is the neccessary (or is it mississippi) scenario that will raise the share value.
if we get all the breasts that have been mentioned...ill be popping something other than a cork...lol
The "featured" section is gone...and when you go into products there are blue highlighted words, when you pass over them their definitions appear.
Gov Arnold will be pressing for reduction of emissions and pollution in his State of the State address, too bad things aren't ready...would've been a great plug. That is his next item of attention following his Healthcare initiative announced the other day....at least that's what the little green men told me while I was riding the space shuttle a few weeks ago...btw, I own it too.
With the tremendous volume...bugz may be correct. It looks like a 100 different people are accumulating today so far...one share each.
Gen Alexander Haig to be on Kudlow and Company tomorrow...Kudlow announced that as he was signing off today.
The med equipment I sell for just got an endorsement by Katie Couric...maybe (doubtful at this time, I know) we'll get a mention tomorrow...(laughing at self)
Equal time...GIANTS blew it too. Phillip Rivers, oh well.
I understand that additional testing on other engines will be needed to be in compliance with all the gov regs to achieve Exec order status...for those that have the patience...hopefully it will pay off.
We can speculate all we want on if, when, what, and where...only time wil tell.
Thanks to everyone here that have opinions and post them...good, bad, or ugly.
da boys r girls tonight...hahahahahahahahaha
none taken. I know this is a gamble and hopefully will be worth the wait. I'll keep the faith that future testing will show more significant results as they move towards older engines...it would make sense that older, less efficient designs in addition to more wear and tear would reap more benefit. I would assume (never assume) that most of us here would be happier with the next round of testing.
It is good to know that current and future PR's just give it to us straight...without the fluff.
A bad truth is better than a good lie.
I asked: why doesn't the company calculate the average age of semi tractor trailer engines in use currently...and test the pro on that. This way the results can say that the avg truck can reduce emissions by X and increase milage by X.
I would think the results there would be more significant. I can appreciate the 5% reduction on the newer/cleaner engine...but why not look for more impact with the results and be more realistic for marketing purposes.
I also asked where the gasoline dynovalve was??
Thanks for your time...and it is clear to me now that you do communicate w the company or you wouldn't have known about my email to Greg...MM
Better test would be to calculate the average age of the semi engines in use and test one similiar...at least then savi could say that the results show the average truck on the road could reduce emissions by X%....a 5% reduction in a new engine shows things can get better even with the "new, cleaner" engine...but I have to say today's news is underwhelming and just the opposite of what this company needed to help with any potential of new/better financing.
Not the results we were waiting for... 5% and .3% ??
You would think they would have tested an older engine to get significant results instead of a newer one and then say that an older engine might provide better results...
I guess I can be wrong every time...:(
WNT:Arctic Chunk Breaks Off
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?pmmsid=1801816
Let the 30 second commercial play first...
Video, Canadian ice shelf breaks off from warming...savi, where are you??
WNT:Arctic Chunk Breaks Off
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?pmmsid=1801816
Almost anytime I watch CNBC there is a segment on either global warming and emissions, fuel economy/alternative solutions to our dependency...lately the pollution situation in China, and now the polar bears may be listed as endangered with a link to global warming and loss of the ice shelf on which they live.
All of this is a major political topic as much as anything else and SAVI could be the perfect near term sollution / band-aid that would let those elcted say, "See, we care, we just recommended dynovalves for everybody"...
Of course, this is all just my opinion.
And don't forget, all TA aside, IF, IF, IF testing results are good and any contract talks are announced there will be an emotional reaction that effects the share price. Like with Serius Satellite (spellcheck)Radio...they were a $3-4 stock and then Howard Stern signed....took about 6-8 weeks or so but it went all the way to $9 before retreating back to $3-4. No TA justified $9...I'd be willing to bet the TA now doesnt justfy $3...but the emotional reaction was there.
I know it is not the same before anybody jumps down my throat...I believe the potential here is much bigger and that we should see that emotional buying with the right series of news items. I am not predicting $9 a share, not even $3-4...but if many of us have the shares we sometimes brag of, there is plenty of opportunity to pick our point, take some off the table and be satisfied....and let the rest ride...always watching for the next emotional spike. Honestly, if we actually wait for TA to justify certain price points it could be a longer wait then we want to think about....although if.......(your guess here).
Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!
Again, this is all just my opinion.
Yeah...must be some tax loss selling...and over all doubts about the company as a whole. I wish everyong here a good holiday and "maybe next year" for savi.
All this talk and downward movement is a little scarey. I dont think any legal fighting will be good as that costs a lot of money....and not having money is one of the biggest problems here.
I hope it all works out and that maybe we see the late report in the next day or two so we have some actual answers.
If I remember correctly it was DFW that said, "This stock is not for the faint of heart." He is right on that, just hope he is right on some of his other opinions as well.
Sei, i Spellet efereething write...they did learn me a lott in skuul.
Does this SB2 cover all the issuance? Filed Sept 5, rec'd sept 6, 2006???? Is that why we didnt see a new sb2 ???
SVMIE -- SaVi Media Group, Inc.
Com ($0.001)
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2006
An Exhibit List can be found on page II-5.
Registration No. 333-
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON D.C. 20549
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM SB-2
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVI MEDIA GROUP, INC.
(Name of small business issuer in its charter)
Nevada 3714 91-1766174
(State or other Jurisdiction (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S. Employer
of Incorporation or Classification Code Number) Identification No.)
Organization)
9852 West Katella Avenue, #363
Anaheim, California 92804
(714) 740-0601
(Address and telephone number of principal executive offices and principal place of business)
Greg Sweeney, Chief Executive Officer
SAVI MEDIA GROUP, INC.
9852 West Katella Avenue, #363
Anaheim, California 92804
(714) 740-0601
(Name, address and telephone number of agent for service)
Copies to:
Gregory Sichenzia, Esq.
Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP
1065 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Flr.
New York, New York 10018
(212) 930-9700
(212) 930-9725 (fax)
APPROXIMATE DATE OF PROPOSED SALE TO THE PUBLIC:
From time to time after this Registration Statement becomes effective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, other than securities offered only in connection with dividend or interest reinvestment plans, check the following box: x
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ________
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. _________
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. _________
If delivery of the prospectus is expected to be made pursuant to Rule 434, please check the following box. _________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
Title of each class of securities to be registered Amount to be registered (1) Proposed maximum offering price per share (2) Proposed maximum aggregate offering price Amount of registration fee
Common stock, $.001 par value 60,000,000 $ 0.00665 $ 399,000 $ 42.69
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon conversion of secured convertible debentures 990,000,000 $ 0.00665 $ 6,583,500 $ 704.43
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 1,000,000,000 $ 0.00665 $ 6,650,000 $ 711.55
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 1,000,000,000 $ 0.00665 $ 6,650,000 $ 711.55
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 300,000,000 $ 0.01 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 200,000,000 $ 0.015 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 150,000,000 $ 0.02 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 100,000,000 $ 0.03 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 60,000,000 $ 0.05 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 40,000,000 $ 0.075 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 30,000,000 $ 0.10 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Common stock, $.001 par value issuable upon exercise of warrants 20,000,000 $ 0.15 $ 3,000,000 $ 321.00
Total 3,950,000,000 $ 44,282,500 $ 4,738.22
(1) Includes shares of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share, which may be offered pursuant to this registration statement, which shares are issuable upon conversion of secured convertible debentures and exercise of common stock purchase warrants.
(2) Estimated solely for purposes of calculating the registration fee in accordance with Rule 457(c) and Rule 457(g) under the Securities Act of 1933, using the average of the high and low price as reported on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board on August 28, 2006, which was $0.00675 per share.