The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Cheers Gordon, I respect your point of view. Now back to more pressing matters - SYN, big mistake changing the name. I have everything crossed, fingers, legs, eyes...etc in the hope this will eventually come good, otherwise, I can see old age and poverty looming up on the near horizon. Thank God I invested in UKOG :-((
Ok, Gordon. We can agree to disagree and accept we have opposing views on this subject but working at BAS for seventeen years gave me quite an in-depth knowledge of how little we really know about the processes that control the climate. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading. My argument is that man-made carbon dioxide is not the cause of the slight global warming we are experiencing or the climate anomalies we appear to be having. However, looking back over a geological time period (the past 2000 years are insignificantly minute) The well-documented record of global temperature shows that we have been in a major cooling period since the Eocene 50 million years ago. The Earth was on average 16ºC warmer then. Greenland and Antarctica were ice-free and covered in forest. The progenitors of every carbon-based lifeform on Earth today survived through what may have been the warmest time in the history of life as we know it (Jim). This makes absolute nonsense of today's predictions of looming disasters as a result of a 2ºC rise. At present we are experiencing one of the coldest climates and atmospheric, carbon dioxide minimums in the Earth's history. A good number of real climatologists are now looking at the cause of extreme weather patterns which are associated with the wholesale destruction of the Equatorial Rainforests and they are finding powerful evidence that deforestation poses real threats to global food production and is also having extreme effects on the climate. Their conclusion is that deforestation of the equatorial rainforests creates immediate impacts on rainfall and temperature, which occur both locally and worldwide. You may wish to consider the following piece of history...Professor Emeritus of physics Harold Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara has called global warming a “scam” in his resignation letter, which was addressed to the American Physical Society.
He stated: “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” QED!!!!
Dear me Gordon, pray do tell me which piece of my post is ill-informed I note your lack of submission of real data to disprove me, just the mundane rantings of a sheep regurgitating all the media manure you've been spoonfed over the last 2 decades. Oh, and by the way, I do not have a Twitter account - so for a start, you're wrong there chum. Are you contradicting me on the fact we are only 220 ppm (actually that should read 240 ppm) of CO2 above the level when all plant life on earth would cease to exist? Fact... The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has reduced by about 90% during the last 150 million years. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants. You also state..."In this case the vast majority of scientists many of whom have spent an entire career studying this are in agreement and that's good enough for me" OK, name them, I take it you are referring to the fictitious 97% of scientists who say climate science is a done thing? Are you also casting doubt on my reference to the inaccuracies of the 39 IPCC climate model simulation, temperature trend from 1979 to 2020 as compared to the real observed data? Fact...The models average (that's all 39) shows an average increase of +0.45ºC per decade whereas the true situation, using observed data (that hasn't been massaged) from around the world shows an actual rise in temperature of +0.17ºC per decade and so you are also doubting the word of two very eminent climate scientists and their teams. My summary of..." Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform or reflect" was merely another way of saying no science is a done thing and you, as a so-called physicist?? should have realised that. The fact not any of the sophisticated climate models can reproduce even past events with any accuracy, demonstrates there is a serious flaw in our knowledge of how the climate really works. Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and is the only molecule that is present in the atmosphere in all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. We are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and thus the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible Also your observation (surely you do but jest?) "... but as a species, we simply can't afford to take that chance and leave it until it's too late." Erm, too late for what? You're sounding like that pathetic Swedish ignoramus. Have a look around, my physicist friend, at all the limestone in the world, Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, etc, etc, which, as a geologist, I often do in awe, that all this was once atmospheric carbon dioxide. Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to the lack of CO2. I am rather curious as to what type of physicist you profess to be, obviously not one who understands thermodynamics and differences in the infrared absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases.
Just read the latest RNS and it is nonsense. Carbon dioxide is good for the planet, doubling it would make very little difference to the Earth's mean temperature but would make one hell of a difference to the growth of vegetation. At the moment, we are only 220 ppm of CO2 above the level when all plant life on earth would cease to exist - and so would every other living creature. All this about carbon capture and reducing to zero production is complete and utter horse**** based on finance, media hysteria, corrupt governments and the general stupidity of the population just accepting all this crap. WAKE UP for God's sake. There is not and I mean absolutely, not one shred of real scientific evidence or data that proves or confirms anything these climate models (and their apostles) relating to future predictions of climate behavior are correct in any shape or form. The difference between the modeled and observed trends were tested by Canadian Prof. Ross McKitrick and Prof. John Christy in a 2021 paper every climate model failed the test badly, so inaccurate as to be deemed useless and completely unfit for purpose. So models and observations do not agree with each other and the difference between them is highly significant. Remember that these models contain all the physical knowledge of the current climate science community and are still unable to reproduce fundamental flows of energy. Therefore any hypothesis relating to the trend of future climatic events, based on these models, fails BADLY. Draw your own conclusions, but governments and the like are basing all their energy policies on lies and inaccuracies and we are suffering as a consequence. Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform or reflect
Assets are good, RNS positive, (and the world's supply of lithium and neodymium could be exhausted within 20 years) so I have a feeling, potential investors are about the witness a "Road to Damascus" revelation with share.
We all have thoughts on what may or may not be the case, but all just speculation at the moment. My thoughts are, there are billions of cubic metres of gas down there just waiting for the taps to be turned on, but then, I may be wrong, and it just turns out to be a load of hot air.
Where are you looking? A different SYN maybe 'cause I don't see it here.
04-Aug-22 08:06:58 0.1805 154,321 Sell* 0.18 0.19 278.55 O
04-Aug-22 08:06:05 0.1815 3,000,000 Sell* 0.18 0.19 5,445 O
03-Aug-22 15:34:59 0.1859 61,333 Unknown* 0.00 0.00 114.02 O
03-Aug-22 15:34:59 0.18595 -61,333 Unknown* 0.00 0.00 -114.05
Grayling: You really don't understand what you're talking about or the processes that drive the climate do you? You fail to mention carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat-producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.
Carbon footprint, greenhouse gases, manmade carbon dioxide destroying the planet. For energy needs relying on unreliable wind and sun - all the hype the climate change clowns spout forth at every opportunity. However, lets do some sums on the undeniable facts about CO2…
CO2 takes up around 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm is about 0.04% No argument there.
There are about 750 gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year – the majority of it from natural sources. No argument there.
Now there are several figures for human-created (anthropogenic) CO2 - depending on who you ask and believe – but it is reasonable to state that it is somewhere between 6 gigatons and 40 gigatons - but either way it remains insignificant, as I will demonstrate:So get your calculators out team…Now I am prepared to give the CAGW Alarmists (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming i.e.climate change) a fair go here - and if it is 40 gigatons that is anthropologically caused, then that means that 5.33% of all CO2 emitted comes from human causes – 5.33% of 0.04% is still ONLY 0.0021% of the atmosphere is CO2 that comes from human causes…It is simple math and no matter how you slice and dice it - it remains infinitesimal!
To get a simple concept of just how SMALL a percentage that is, we take 100 litres of water in a nice large container – this represents the total atmosphere 0f Earth. Pour out 99% of it and you are left with ONE litre. Then, pour out 99.6% of that one litre. What is left is 4 millilitres (less than a teaspoon full), now THAT is the equivalent of the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - compared to the original 100 litres. Now from that 4 millilitres, 94.6% is due to natural causes - so now pour out another 94.6% more.
What is left is 0.2 millilitres, about the same as a single teardrop compared to that 100 litres - and THAT is our human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere!
ALL the Climate Change Alarmists and governments (as they screw more and more taxes out of us) are trying to tell you that THIS is what is causing catastrophic global warming, rising sea levels and Earth's demise in a few short years!
You believe that? You need to get a job mucking out the Unicorn stable because It is just a load of scaremongering, bloody garbage.
One would think, with the current situation of half of Europe about to lose its main source of energy and our energy prices going through the roof, this share price should be rocketing. However, unless my eyes deceive me, it's still bouncing about in the gutter. Could this be a reflection of the level confidence there is the CEO and his board of 3rd rate failures. Would sell up but hoping for a miracle - so come on St.Jude, pull your finger out! Strong Buy??? You indeed may wonder....I'm the eternal (but poverty stricken) optimist.