You forget, Eunice, Dear, that you guys don't have any data. Your motives are simple--greed and cowardice. And the risks are plenty severe without any exaggeration.
As David Archer points out, "The Arctic and US anthropogenic are each about 5% of the total" (with 2.5% from the East Siberian continental shelf as per Shakhova) so why would anyone interpret Shakhova's results to mean that the emissions from the Arctic should "dominate". (Eli's word)
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
Hmmmmmm..... Sounds just like the hysterics' playbook:
ReplyDelete1. Deny the data.
2. Question the motives.
3. Exaggerate the effect and risk.
Eunice
You forget, Eunice, Dear, that you guys don't have any data. Your motives are simple--greed and cowardice. And the risks are plenty severe without any exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteThanks Eunice. If ever I come across a hysteric, I'll be sure to know.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, and McKibben.
ReplyDeleteNot even weak Eunice
ReplyDeleteRevkin has exceeded himself again. I can't be bothered any more.
ReplyDeletehttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/reality-check-roundup-tumorous-rats-methane-bombs/
I hope he's proud of himself, because nobody else is.
The deniers who come in here are wasting their time. Nobody cares.
ReplyDeleteAs David Archer points out, "The Arctic and US anthropogenic are each about 5% of the total" (with 2.5% from the East Siberian continental shelf as per Shakhova) so why would anyone interpret Shakhova's results to mean that the emissions from the Arctic should "dominate". (Eli's word)
if this Eunice gets any weaker, he'll end up running away from the butterfly on his New Yorker cover.
ReplyDelete