spike wrote:Oh, pstarr, if you weren't so sad you'd be funny. Your posts seem to consist of meaningless insults and unsupported accusions, and display more ignorance than anything else. You apparently have no knowledge of my work of track record beyond a few predictions in the past decade. My book has both Chris Nelder's summary of many of my bad (short-term) predictions, but also a list of my major publications and assessment of how perceptive, or not, they were. Do you have either research or track record?
spike wrote:Oh, pstarr, if you weren't so sad you'd be funny.
spike wrote: Your posts seem to consist of meaningless insults and unsupported accusions, and display more ignorance than anything else. You apparently have no knowledge of my work of track record beyond a few predictions in the past decade. My book has both Chris Nelder's summary of many of my bad (short-term) predictions, but also a list of my major publications and assessment of how perceptive, or not, they were. Do you have either research or track record?
spike wrote:Chris Nelder, Chris, “Reading Peak Oil Deniers is Is a Waste of Time,” April 28, 2009, http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles ... eniers/486.
Here you go, Pstarr. It's in chapter 9 of my book, along with an appendix listing my major research papers.
spike wrote:The Hills model doesn't really impress me.
spike wrote: In part, early estimates of EREOI (1930) are highly suspect, given data limitations. Also, EREOI tends to rise and fall, but those who embrace the measure usually extrapolate downward trends.
spike wrote: I'm not sure looking at the energy input into energy production is better than looking at total inputs (labor, capital, energy) which can be done by looking at profits.
Also, it is true that I didn’t ‘venture to guess’ how recovery factors might be raised to 35% in an op-ed article in a newspaper, but it’s hard to believe anyone with experience in the industry would challenge that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests