An Important Message For Oilprice Members

Red

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    597

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

252 Excellent

1 Follower

About Red

  • Rank
    Power User

Personal Information

  • First Name
    Array
  • Last Name
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,836 profile views
  1. Imagine dealing with responses which defy the basics of a topic grounded in scientific concepts.
  2. That you cannot understand principles of logic and you cannot understand science make it difficult to explain this basic flaw in what was presented, and which I have reiterated. Global temperatures in Figure 1 showed that there was a positive correlation with changing CO2 levels. The data over 39 years was meaningful as the trend was of continuation. It is therefore impossible to reasonably conclude the paper could discount CO2 as causative.
  3. I think you need to understand the nature of your questions. It's all relevant to "energy." WRT to the ozone layer issue you can satisfy yourself with an answer by finding the data for Antarctica which would be relevant. Try doing that first, rather than load a question with a blank.
  4. Try an exercise in elementary logic. If you do not consider almost 40 years of data as scientifically meaningful, on what grounds can you then consider anything else in the paper as meaningful? What you personally choose to believe is up to you. When I see crap presented, I call it for what it is, and in this case have explained why.
  5. It's hard for me to comment on your point without disrespecting you. So get a better education. Please read my comments on the paper where I make it clear why the paper is a crock of cobblers. The very evidence it begins with disproves what the paper set out show. The remainder of the paper is barely pseudoscience. The bottom line is that you have found something which you appear not to understand because it selectively, and badly, uses local data to disprove a global phenomenon. That's called cherrypicking. The alternative it offers is about as relevant as me proposing astrology.
  6. Do your own bidding. I told you what was wrong with your idea about irradiance, which is pivotal to climate change, and you have ignored what I asked.
  7. The "small linear trend" is over 2 degrees per century. The fact you consider this "not important" suggests you might not realise what it means in terms of changing the nature of the planet's climate, and the damage that will be done. LOL - do you understand what this means? All denialists say this when they cannot support their arguments. Do forgive me as I have finished posting about gold in another forum, and as it's going 6.30am here I went to sleep earlier after watching the televised ICC Cricket World Cup where Australia was in action. The point is, you do not realise the paper you quote from would be marked as a fail everywhere in the world, and you want me to keep pulling it apart.
  8. You realise this contradicts your claims about "benefits". Maybe not.
  9. You did too! Your point was as valid as saying the developed world has benefitted from the wheel, compass, paper, or gunpowder. What you did not do was explain that progress happens over time, and the developed world did little or nothing to actually advance other nations. Rasmus's points hold true. And how is it related to the topic, you might ask? Because the developing nations are not responsible for the predicament the planet is in wrt to climate. Indeed, you even fail to understand how it could be so.
  10. I raised an issue about a claim you made. If it was not relevant then you need not have raised it. Or is that to hard for you?
  11. He did, but maybe you overlooked that Antarctica is not representative of global climate.
  12. Maybe you should read what you have previously written! If you raise an issue in a thread, then at least work out that it was YOU and not me introducing it. Little wonder I laugh at your expense.
  13. This is just another of your rubbish claims. There has be some "progress," and it has been very slow. By your reckoning, maybe even around 200 years late for the little that has occurred. I could comment on what you did say that was almost on topic, but there is no evidence from you that you understand climate science.
  14. You assume too much and are not good with "evidence". Your tenuous points are now along the lines that backwaters have some trinkets from this incredible advancement. Instead, the developed world actively denies some developing nations what they need to progress. And where there are some gains it's due to the developed world pillaging their resources, so they can buy a few trinkets. Ever wondered why China's Belt and Road strategy was being embraced?

  15. Gold, Still Boring

    TraderTate replied to topic's Red in Mining

    In a different part of cyberspace to an oil website, I used to post a lot about gold. It definitely got boring after its price fell off a cliff, but I started posting again at the beginning of this year. In AUD terms it today breached $2000 for the first time ever. In US dollar terms it decisively broke through long term resistance of $1350. Let's see where momentum takes it from here.