Another Greens shibboleth bites the dust.

Want unbiased assessments? Investors have no allegiance except to making money.

http://www.dailywealth.com/1918/Why-Everyone-Is-Wrong-About-the-American-Oil-Boom

In 2011, the U.S. consumed 22% of the global oil supply. So what goes on in the U.S. oil market will have a profound effect around the world. And as DailyWealth readers know, what's going on is an incredible boom in oil production.

Oil production is up 34% from its low in 2005. And it could more than triple over the next 10 years.

If the U.S. continues to produce more and more oil (which it will), we'll buy less oil from other regions, like Africa and the Middle East. This will pull down the global price of oil.

Also, realize that the U.S. economy, while not in a recession, is still sluggish. This "near recession" condition is showing up in muted demand for oil-derived fuels. Fuel production (diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel) consumes 79% of the oil we use in the U.S. Today, global fuel demand is down 13% from its peak in 2007. Demand for gasoline and jet fuel peaked in April 2007.

Dear cohenite,

Here is your problem. You can't keep putting up papers to disprove things then tell us how inadequate or inaccurate they are.

And why are you trying to disprove what you deem unprovable?

It must really be doing your head in, it is mine and I'm only trying to keep up.

The overwhelming impression I get is that you think the whole lot is a crock. That is fine but if so just say it.

The alternative is for you to present the papers that you fully endorse as solid science to make your point. If you have any of those I would be more than happy to indulge in a technical discussion of them.

Is the link you provided one of them?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/2011_Cloud_encyclopedia_submitted.pdf

Shall we try there?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you for the kind words about the Job thread.

About my discussion with Anthony, the post to which you refer was only arrived at from what went before.

Further as an article writer for OLO he deserves every chance to explain how he has arrived at the position he now finds himself. I think that is somewhat clearer now and will hopefully solidify further as we continue. This should allow myself and others to have a more nuanced perspective on future contributions from him.

Besides all that my knowledge has certainly gained from the discussion and I thank him for it.

Fair enough, I wish you both well.

csteele, I will shortly have an article published dealing with what I think are the major recent research papers which have contradicted the theory of AGW.

I will refer to that article here after it is published. I am currently dealing with another topic and will be busy with that for the next day but I will look in here and will respond to any observation or comment you care to make about the cloud paper or Ramanathan's paper or indeed any other aspect of AGW you care to raise.

Dear cohenite,

I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions.

You name it and I'm there!

Is the cloud paper one that enjoys your unabashed support?

Morning csteele,

Had dinner with a colleague last night and we were discussing ocean heat content.

He flicked this link to my email this morning:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

Anthony raised Levitus the other day, he'll probably do it again in his next "published article".

Hope it helps.