Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age

[normstad]

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

I'm pretty certain his paper will be published. It was merely rejected where it was submitted, just like this one was, but was later published elsewhere. BTW, this page discusses the process of the rejection. The actual paper is linked in the article.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/...iewed-journal/


BTW, I can tell from your quick dismissal that you didn't actually read the paper. Thanks for playing though... silly wabbit!

You're rather dismissive considering that quote came deep into the article. It's not a "paper". You using that wrong terminology shows how little you understand of the scientific publishing process.

I notice you did not refute that my quote from the article blows it's credibility apart. Why is that? Is it because you do not understand the reason? Or do not want to?

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by normstad

The author was a whistleblower on the sour gas plant, even though the energy regulator already had it on their radar screen. He makes himself out to be a hero of incredible proportions. Exaggerating his part, you know, almost like a Trump. He was responsible for the creation of half a million jobs and caused $250 Billion in investments? Really?

Notice he gives no details of either, just pats himself on the back. You know, like a Trump would. In cowboy country we call that all hat and no cattle.

Regardless, he dismisses that CO2 is a driver for climate change, even though it is known to be for well over 100 years now.



He neglects to say the primary cause for the decrease from 1945-1977 was aerosols in the atmosphere. This was a well known fact, and if has all these degrees that claim to have studied this, he should have been aware of it.

He avoids the fact that there is now so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that plants no longer can help us.

https://www.businessinsider.com/so-m...save-us-2017-5

Modern humans were not even around the last time CO2 was this high;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...million-years/

He disregards that we know humans are the cause of the CO2 due to the C13/C12 isotope ratio. If he is so knowledgeable, he should know what that is.

Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Why does he not talk about that? Note: I have NEVER seen a climate change denier ever talk about the CO2 isotopes. Ever. I wonder why? Irrefutable evidence perhaps?

I could go on. But this will do for a start. Address the issues, just like we were asked to. I threw in the braggadio part of Macrae for context of credibility.

Here is your carbon isotope information that helps refute AGW.


A premise of AGW is that the "residence time" of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than a thousand years, However, C14 in the atmosphere was doubled via above ground nuclear testing from the late 1940s through the 1960s. In measuring the decline of the additional C14 in the atmosphere, it was found that the "half life" of those carbon atoms was four years.


Radiolabeling of such a large amount of carbon will never occur again in the history of the planet (sans a nuclear war) and, like the Great Depression, is a world wide "experiment which refutes some of the core beliefs of AGW.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Here is your carbon isotope information that helps refute AGW.


A premise of AGW is that the "residence time" of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than a thousand years, However, C14 in the atmosphere was doubled via above ground nuclear testing from the late 1940s through the 1960s. In measuring the decline of the additional C14 in the atmosphere, it was found that the "half life" of those carbon atoms was four years.


Radiolabeling of such a large amount of carbon will never occur again in the history of the planet (sans a nuclear war) and, like the Great Depression, is a world wide "experiment which refutes some of the core beliefs of AGW.

Where do you get the idea that the residence time is greater than a thousand years? Most gets reabsorbed in 20.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ses-remain-air