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)
Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.
8 comments:
Hmmmmmm..... Sounds just like the hysterics' playbook:
1. 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.
Thanks Eunice. If ever I come across a hysteric, I'll be sure to know.
Sounds like Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, and McKibben.
Not even weak Eunice
Revkin has exceeded himself again. I can't be bothered any more.
http://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.
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)
if this Eunice gets any weaker, he'll end up running away from the butterfly on his New Yorker cover.
Post a Comment