[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

]

Notice he finally got around to fixing that post after making a conversion error and being off by a factor of 1000. Then he fixes the error without admitting that he underestimated sea rise by a thousand and treats the number exactly the same.

Well, Mr. Typo...

I'm not sure what you mean by finally, and if he didn't admit the error in the correction he illustrated with a strike mark to look like this - 159/1000 or 0.159, I'm not sure how you know he made it. Explain.

Are you saying the number he has as a result up there now is not correct? Are you saying the formula he used that informs him "That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!" is not correct.

Are you saying he is incorrect to multiply the 159 billion tons the press release claimed by 3 millionths to get his result?

Are you saying the 159 billion tons claimed in the press release are not mentioned in the study, cause if they aren't...Damn! Those lying BBC and Guardian pricks. They did it again.

Are you saying the result of 1.85 inches/century is incorrect?

Or are you simply saying Watts made a typo in his first post that he showed as such? Very well then...shall we start counting yours?

[Jabberwalker]

More deluded scientists, eh? The NASA people are stupid, the European Space Agency people are stupid. It's a good thing that you're here to set them all straight.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

More deluded scientists, eh? The NASA people are stupid, the European pace Agency people are stupid. It's a good thing that you're here to set them all straight.

If I offered you $100 cash just to denounce global warming theories in your next post you'd take me up on it, wouldn't you?

Now imagine yourself a scientist or researcher whose institution depends mostly upon government grants and ALL of the government grant money comes from saying AGW is real.

Your income and the income of your institution depends upon you toeing the party line. Or you'll get fired like so many climatologists and others who have dared to question the AGW cult.

So you can parrot what you've been told to say or you can find another career as almost every skeptic has had to do.

Oh, and be sure to pontificate about academic freedom while you parrot the latest press release from James Hansen or David Suzuki.

[andyt]

1. China has more people. It's only equitable to look at CO2 emissions on a per capita basis, not on a nation state level.

2. The developing nations do have a point that we've reached the current level of CO2 mainly by emissions from the industrialized nations, so why should they have to cut back their emissions to the same level as we should?

I consider these problems unsolvable. We're not going to collapse our industries to take on the whole burden of CO2 emissions while developing nations continue to merrily spew along. They can't afford to cut back their emissions especially while still developing. See the problems China is facing in the post on that topic.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Natural gas continues to shrink America’s carbon footprint, API says

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest report shows that natural gas continues to help shrink America’s carbon footprint, said API spokesman Zachary Cikanek.

“America is leading the world in reducing greenhouse gasses thanks, in part, to the revolution in natural gas production,” said Cikanek. “This latest report shows that emissions dropped an additional 3.4% from 2011 to 2012, and emissions are down 10% since 2005.”

“Innovations in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have helped make the U.S. the largest producer of natural gas in the world, and these technologies are a great example of how we can grow the economy, create jobs, and protect the environment.”

http://www.worldoil.com/Natural-gas-con ... -says.html

China and the developing world need to catch up.

[N_Fiddledog]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

More deluded scientists, eh? The NASA people are stupid, the European pace Agency people are stupid. It's a good thing that you're here to set them all straight.

Well, there's NASA and there's NASA. Do you mean the NASA Obama created overtop the shell of the space agency he killed? Remember that one? It was supposed to perform Muslim outreach? I don't know if that's still around, but yeah, that idea was moronic. Speaking of Moronic there's the NASA guys who put up those stupid warmist propaganda sites. The worse though are those failed computer nerds from NASA/GISS. They're not just stupid, they're evil.

Some of those NASA guys out in the field, doing actual science though are doing decent stuff. Luckily there aren't enough of them to get too much attention, cause if the Obama boys from Chicago ever notice them doing real science, they're gone faster than the space guys. So shhhhh, or more Muslim outreach coming right up.

As to the "European pace Agency" I don't know who they are. You wouldn't mean "Space" agency would you? I hope not. Zip's real particular about who's allowed to make typos and how they do it.

[ShepherdsDog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

stratos stratos:

Didn't say that I said I don't think the human factor is anywhere near as great as what science says it is. One of the reasons is science says this type of thing happens over and over. Then I point out that though China is the number 1 polluter everyone is still pointing the finger at the US thus it's political and not true caring about reduction of pollution. But wow Zipper way to disregard all of that.

So let me translate your response.

I don't have a answer to what Stratos said so I'll make it sound like he was saying something completely different.

If it's all natural then it makes no difference what China is emitting as far as CO2 goes. It's only once you think that CO2 emissions are a problem that China's CO2 emissions matter.

Nuke 'em ....short term pain for long term gain

[Freakinoldguy]

Nah, they're actually doing us a big favour by keeping the planet cool and the only issue I have with them continuing to burn baby burn is that at some point we won't be able breath so, the temperature and the seal levels rising by a couple of inches won't mean sweet fuck all in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... lanet.html

[xerxes]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

More deluded scientists, eh? The NASA people are stupid, the European pace Agency people are stupid. It's a good thing that you're here to set them all straight.

If I offered you $100 cash just to denounce global warming theories in your next post you'd take me up on it, wouldn't you?

Now imagine yourself a scientist or researcher whose institution depends mostly upon government grants and ALL of the government grant money comes from saying AGW is real.

Your income and the income of your institution depends upon you toeing the party line. Or you'll get fired like so many climatologists and others who have dared to question the AGW cult.

So you can parrot what you've been told to say or you can find another career as almost every skeptic has had to do.

Oh, and be sure to pontificate about academic freedom while you parrot the latest press release from James Hansen or David Suzuki.

The same is true for all the "scientists" who are paid by oil companies to dispute established science.

[Jabberwalker]

They are surprisingly like the tobacco lobby.

[ShepherdsDog]

or the lobbyists for big pharma

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

]

Notice he finally got around to fixing that post after making a conversion error and being off by a factor of 1000. Then he fixes the error without admitting that he underestimated sea rise by a thousand and treats the number exactly the same.

Well, Mr. Typo...

I'm not sure what you mean by finally, and if he didn't admit the error in the correction he illustrated with a strike mark to look like this - 159/1000 or 0.159, I'm not sure how you know he made it. Explain.

Are you saying the number he has as a result up there now is not correct? Are you saying the formula he used that informs him "That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!" is not correct.

Are you saying he is incorrect to multiply the 159 billion tons the press release claimed by 3 millionths to get his result?

Are you saying the 159 billion tons claimed in the press release are not mentioned in the study, cause if they aren't...Damn! Those lying BBC and Guardian pricks. They did it again.

Are you saying the result of 1.85 inches/century is incorrect?

Or are you simply saying Watts made a typo in his first post that he showed as such? Very well then...shall we start counting yours?

I'm saying he fixed his calculation error, which increased his calculated sea level rise by a factor of a thousand, but still reached exactly the same conclusion, which was "meh."

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm saying he fixed his calculation error, which increased his calculated sea level rise by a factor of a thousand, but still reached exactly the same conclusion, which was "meh."

Are you sure?

I saw the marked correction on the page, but I didn't see the original. Did you? Was there a mention of what was done in the comments? Sometimes they do that. Should I go look?

But the calculation that's up there now is correct, right?

If not how is it incorrect, what is the correct calculation, and why is it mathematically superior? I'm not saying that to be a dick. I honestly want to know. I don't want to be quoting something incorrect in the future.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

More deluded scientists, eh? The NASA people are stupid, the European Space Agency people are stupid. It's a good thing that you're here to set them all straight.

SNAP!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Are you sure?

I saw the marked correction on the page, but I didn't see the original. Did you? Was there a mention of what was done in the comments? Sometimes they do that. Should I go look?

But the calculation that's up there now is correct, right?

If not how is it incorrect, what is the correct calculation, and why is it mathematically superior? I'm not saying that to be a dick. I honestly want to know. I don't want to be quoting something incorrect in the future.

The calculation is now correct. Although the effect was a thousand times stronger than he originally calculated, his conlcusion did not change. Odd.