Member Info for Quady

Madpunter just for you.

If you don't believe me check with NASA/NOAA.

Mad made climate change is the problem here .

The reason is until we started pouring CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate was able to balance itself.

Coal and Oil are carbon sinks, they were never meant to be extracted and burnt releasing it back into the atmosphere.

It was man that did that. Not nature.

Also the oceans and trees are carbon sinks.

But these have been chopped down and polluted.

Had this never happened we would be OK.

The reason CO2 is dangerous as the man made part is thus.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for between 300 and a 1000 years depending where about it is in the atmosphere, so this is a cumulative effect.

That is why when we have gone from around 280 parts per million to just over 400 parts per million ( rough guess ) it is urgent we not only reduce our carbon emissions but get to net zero and then start reversing them.

This is what the man made is about and why it's so urgent.

Time really is running out.

We don't yet understand when natures carbon sinks get saturated, but when that happens it's game over.

As no CO2 will be absorbed and all life emits CO2 and that will be the end pretty fast.

Madpunter that's not true, post a link that says that.

Slug being even more stupid.

Man made climate change has nothing to do with the earth 4.6 billion years ago.

Because very few humans on it at that time.

Zero to be accurate.

The fool still doesn't understand the difference between climate change and man made climate change.

Thank you Madpunter that didn't take me long to find out the truth.

Forget the second link, it's rubbish.

Climate deniers always try to go back thousands or millions of years ago to prove a point. Often forgetting we are talking about mad made climate change, as a rule of thumb. Start from 1800 to present day for accurate results.

Your first link is interesting but wrong.

I will post why.

The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.15 Jan 2013

Some people reported 14 degrees and rounded down and some reported 15 degrees and rounded up.

Both are wrong. It's 14.6 degrees.

Hope that clears things up.

Once again thank you for the links.

Jezzoo asking for proof is necessary so it can be examined and held up to scrutiny, otherwise anyone can make up anything.

It applies to both sides of the argument.

I see you are admitting to your character traits Slug.

Let me help you, you left off vile and disgusting.

Slug of course I didn't say that.

Why would anyone say that BHP would want 70% of Solgolds 85% share of ENSA.

Like madhatter post the link.

I think I know what you are on about, but going to let you make an even bigger fool of yourself as I didn't say what you said I said.

Carry on post the date and time I said that and we can look at it.

Be quick as you will be gone soon.

More lies from Slug.

Just show me a post where I said BHP only wanted 59.5% of ENSA.

I have never said that.

As I have often said the most unintelligent poster on here, however kat2008 is challenging him for the title recently.

Slug says he doesn't hate women, but then goes to prove he does,

Madpunter please just post the link and let me investigate.

Don't change the subject.

Madpunter I have looked at 14 is the new 15 and can only see articles about teenage girls.

Could you post a link please, so I can take a look.

OK Madpunter you live up to your name.

You are mad.

If you are just looking at google and cannot produce a peer review study, then what you are looking at is false.

Reasoning: If the story you looked at was correct then in order to change the modelling many peer reviewed studies would have been required to explain why the modelling was changed.

I only asked for one.

This should have been your first point of call to check the story.

Sure other checks need to be undertaken but peer review remains the best way to scrutinize the science.

The smoking argument is null and void.

It was the Tobacco companies that said smoking was good for you.

It was independent scientists peer review process that exposed them.

Madpunter you are missing the point you hear a story that supports your world view and you latch onto it and ignore all the evidence.

I am not familiar with the story.

You may be right as science remodels all the time on facts.

Please post the link to the story and just one peer reviewed study that said the models were wrong, and I will look into it.

Oh dear that well known fool Slug becomes even more foolish by the minute.

He has been proven totally wrong on Covid, but doesn't even understand it.

Before we had the vaccine, thousands were dying everyday in the UK.

This was replicated around the world.

It was the scientists that saved us, and we owe them a debt which can never be repaid.

You are vile in every way.

Madpunter you are making the same arguments the fools that are climate deniers make.

None of the points raised by you address the man made element.

Try reading the science.

Why not start with NOAA.

The worlds leading authority.

This is why Slug is the most unintelligent poster on here. And a complete fool.

This is what he posted a few minutes ago.

This is simply about money. Immiserate and impoverish the naive fools so they can't get enjoy the life the rich have.

I have been totally taken in by David Attenborough according to Slug.

According to Slug David Attenborough doesn't care about the planet, he is here to scare the poor people so the rich can continue with their lifestyles.

Just beyond unintelligent.

GOODBYE SLUG.

Jezzoo I don't cherry pick information.

I make sure what the company says is understood.

I lately agree with addicknt on we require more clarity.

Highflyingman you are only picking the parts of conversation that suits your world view.

Solgold are mine finders.

However a JV would be the mine builder.

That's the message which is constantly reported by the company.

It is unambiguous.

The strategic review is key to derisking Cascabel to advance it in the best possible way.

Hence the 3km decline and looking for a partner.

A reduced PFS that means a fraction of the capital required, so that we can mine the ore to raise more capital to continue construction.

I feel that was the unambiguous message.

Thank you PAULUS57.

Excellent find.

Absolutely no doubt we are going to construct Alpala.

I talked about the staged finance since 2016.

But the usual tosh being talked about by the likes of Redknight and DBW and insults that accompany these two and others have made it difficult to talk about the development of Solgold.

Great to hear that construction starting next year, and also partners being sort for our other tenements, and that this is being talked about at the moment.

Staged construction means that we raise some money and then finance the rest from ore mined.

Always was the way to go.

Looking forward to next year.