Biden can't even do Green right

Okay. You decided to evade. I will assume that you cannot answer these questions, therefore your statement of 'Bullshit' is itself bullshit.

We track wind speed constantly at many tens of thousands of locations, if you want to argue that we still dont know what the wind is doing then you need to spell out why.
 
We track wind speed constantly at many tens of thousands of locations, if you want to argue that we still dont know what the wind is doing then you need to spell out why.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to use published data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to calculate summary values.
Logic errors: Argument from randU fallacies.
Language errors: Use of comma where period is required. Failure to use apostrophe where required for a contraction. Failure to use comma where required.

Sorry dude, 'tens of thousands' is meaningless. You'll have to do better. Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy. You obviously don't understand statistical mathematics at all. For this kind of summary, you must:
* declare and justify the variance. (for this kind of summary, you must declare how much wind can possibly vary over distance. May I suggest a variance of 150mph/km? This is variance seen from inside a tornado to a distance just a km away.)
* calculate the margin of error value
* document the tolerance value, since you are using instrumentation.
* document the alignment references.
* document the published raw data, including how it was collected, by whom, when. THE RAW DATA MUST BE PUBLISHED. No paywall. No data, no summary.
* justify the data collection method, it's time of collection, and the method of eliminating biasing influences during collection. This includes justifying the time the data was collected and why it's significant, and why any other time is NOT significant.
* select by randN from the raw data. (randN is a random number similar to drawing a card from a deck. Once drawn, that card is no longer in the deck. It cannot be drawn again)
* normalize the selection set by paired randR, and document the margin of the normalization used. (randR is a random number similar to dice. It can occur any number of times, repeat any number of times, or not even occur at all!)
* publish both the average and the margin of error values in the summary.

Please show your work.


It is not possible to measure the wind speed of a continent or even of a nation or even of a city.

Note that statistical math is not capable of prediction (normally inherent in mathematics) due to the use of random numbers. One summary can be quite different from another summary ON THE SAME DATA.

I understand that this requires actual work on your part, as well as an understanding of how to conduct a summary in statistical mathematics. If you are unwilling or unable to perform such a summary, just say so. I also understand that you probably don't have any raw data to show, considering you are making up random numbers of type randU in claiming 'tens of thousands' of stations.
 
Last edited:
Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to use published data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to calculate summary values.
Logic errors: Argument from randU fallacies.
Language errors: Use of comma where period is required. Failure to use apostrophe where required for a contraction. Failure to use comma where required.

Sorry dude, 'tens of thousands' is meaningless. You'll have to do better. Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy. You obviously don't understand statistical mathematics at all. For this kind of summary, you must:
* declare and justify the variance.
* calculate the margin of error value
* document the tolerance value, since you are using instrumentation.
* document the alignment references.
* document the published raw data, including how it was collected, by whom, when, and demonstrate no bias in the raw data.
* select by randN from the raw data.
* normalize the selection set by paired randR, and document the margin of the normalization used.
* publish both the average and the margin of error values in the summary.

Please show your work.


It is not possible to measure the wind speed of a continent or even of a nation or even of a city.

Note that statistical math is not capable of prediction (normally inherent in mathematics) due to the use of random numbers. One summary can be quite different from another summary ON THE SAME DATA.

Your complaint does not interest me.
 
Your complaint does not interest me.

Okay. I will assume again that your complaint of 'Bullshit' is itself bullshit, since you are unwilling or unable to perform the work or unable to show any data. I will also assume at this point that you are unwilling to even recognize statistical mathematics and any statement you make along these lines are just made up shit, which I will probably continue to call you upon every time you do it.
 
All the refineries in the States can handle sour crude. It's an extra step though, which is why they prefer processing sweet crude.
Actually no. The refineries on the Gulf coast like Valero in Port Arthur Tx. Are set up to refine sour crude which they buy at a discounted price. Not all refineries can handle sour crude.
 
Who owns the refineries that take the extra step?
Various.
What is Venezuela crude made into?
The usual products...gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, acetone, xylene, asphalt, toulene, paint thinner (mineral spirits), parts cleaner (blends of other products), etc. Those products are used in Venezuela mostly. Some is exported to places like Cuba.
 
Back
Top