Caution, Precaution, and the Precautionary Principle

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=DMC]
That public letter they put out contains such gems as: …
[/QUOTE]

And, the bigger problem with that statement is that it is not supported. In fact, the computer models can do a good job on the current climate and hindcasting the temperature variations over the last century or so. (See for example here.) And, Hansen’s prediction from back in the 80s is holding up well…although some people like Patrick Michaels and Michael Crichton have tried to convince people otherwise by comparing to the wrong scenario (as Hansen made the prediction for 3 different scenarios of future carbon emissions and of occurrence of major volcanic eruptions).

Of course, they are not perfect…and there is continual work to make them better…but the computer models and the paleoclimate evidence seem to be all converging on the middle range of climate sensitivity of around 3 C rise for a doubling of CO2, with it being quite unlikely that it is below ~1.5 – 2 C and a low probability tail out to high sensitivities but in all likelihood less than ~5C.

42

[QUOTE=intention]
To all of you … yes, 90 scientists did submit a reply to the 60 scientists … and yes, there were some non-scientists on both lists.

However, this just proves my point, that there is in fact no consensus.
[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn’t prove that anymore than the site I linked to on creation science proves there is no consensus on evolution. What matters is the science in the peer-reviewed literature. And, at any rate, the fact that the letter with 60 signers had to include mostly scientists from outside Canada, as well as some outside the field (and few who have published much in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, as far as I can tell) and that they signed on at least one person who didn’t know what he was signing and subsequently renounced it shows how desperate they were.

43

[QUOTE=intention]

I’ll take that as a “no”, that you don’t have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.
[/quote]

Like who in particular?

But, this claim is not true. They haven’t been perfect…but they have done reasonably well against trustworthy data. And, they have also been tested in many other ways (e.g., looking at how well they predict upper-atmospheric water vapor, for instance).

Well, those qualified to look at the science are those scientists in the field and trustworthy scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences. As I noted, the reason their motives become relevant is that they have lost the debate in the scientific literature and are now trying to take their case directly to the public. This alone is a very good sign that their science is bad. Another good sign is that it actually is bad, as has been shown by organizations such as RealClimate.

In practice, your recipe for how science should be handled is a recipe for going back to the Dark Ages. The reason we have been able to use science to make progress is that science has been structured in a way that makes it fairly immune to corrupting influences. However, what you want to do is destroy this…Just as those who are fighting evolution want to do.

44

Good idea. Could you show us some credible science supporting your claim that “if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, […] all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm”?

This hypothesis sounds to me (and, AFAICT, to everyone else here) like a very unlikely prediction with no plausible physical rationale behind it. But you told us that this was “basic atmospheric science”, so it should be fairly easy for you to find a cite that specifically and convincingly explains it.

You are talking a lot about the importance of the quality of scientific research and the comparative unimportance of formal credentials, but you haven’t successfully persuaded anyone so far that you yourself are capable of telling good research from bad. You cannot make convincing arguments about other people’s credibility if you’ve got serious credibility problems of your own.

45

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Good idea. Could you show us some credible science supporting your claim that “if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, […] all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm”?

This hypothesis sounds to me (and, AFAICT, to everyone else here) like a very unlikely prediction with no plausible physical rationale behind it. But you told us that this was “basic atmospheric science”, so it should be fairly easy for you to find a cite that specifically and convincingly explains it.

You are talking a lot about the importance of the quality of scientific research and the comparative unimportance of formal credentials, but you haven’t successfully persuaded anyone so far that you yourself are capable of telling good research from bad. You cannot make convincing arguments about other people’s credibility if you’ve got serious credibility problems of your own.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not making arguments, convincing or otherwise, about anyone’s scientific credibility. You guys are, but you haven’t done anything but attack their funding.

Now, you’ve decided to attack my credibility … why am I not surprised?

w.

46

We are attaacking the credibility of the incredible proposal “If we attained a certain concentration of CO2 (*eg. 480 ppm) and then kept pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, the concentration suddenly wouldn’t change”. Can you back this up at all? I can’t understand this as anything other than “if I keep adding alcohol until a drink is 20% ABV, then if I add more alcohol it doesn’t get any more alcoholic”.

47

[QUOTE=intention]
II’ll take that as a “no”, that you don’t have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that it doesn’t matter if they are good scientists or not. They’re not doing good science.

I understood it just fine.

Cite? Not some of the models, all of the models. If you want to state that some models are sometimes proven to be incorrect, sure. That’s not nearly the same thing.

I don’t care where they went to school or whether they agree with the “consensus”, but when they receive a ton of funding from groups that would like for them to reach a specific point of view, then yes, I question their credibility. When the CEOs of various tobacco companies testified that “cigarrette smoking is not addictive”, I also questioned their credibility (Actually I laughed out loud for a long time). Not due to which school they went to, nor the color of their skin, but because of who pays their salary. Silly PR letters aren’t going to give me warm fuzzy feelings about their work.

Who pays their salary can have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their work, or everything to do with it. When their work happens to disagree with the vast majority of peer reviewed science, but coincidentally aligns perfectly with their funders, then both eyebrows get raised really high.

There’s also a limit to how much time most scientists are going to waste chasing down every bogus rebuttal from paid mouthpieces. Many of them have actual work to do.

Indeed.

48

[QUOTE=jshore]
And, the bigger problem with that statement is that it is not supported. In fact, the computer models can do a good job on the current climate and hindcasting the temperature variations over the last century or so.
[/QUOTE]
I’m shocked. I’m getting sick to my stomach by the thought of those poor well funded “climate scientists” being proven wrong. I think I need a Tums.

49

Kimstu, you say you don’t believe that if emissions level off (or as I said, if we continue to emit at the current rate, which is about 7 gigatonnes of carbon annually) that the atmospheric CO2 will level off.

Before I go to look for citations, I’m not sure what the source of your disbelief is. Is it that:

a) You think that the decay of CO2 is not exponential, or

b) You agree that the decay is exponential, but you think that with exponential decay, that a steady addition of the same amount annually will not eventually be matched by the increased sequestration.

Let me know, so that I can find citations that address your uncertainty.

Me, I just did the calculations myself. It is clear from the data that the amount being sequestered has been increasing annually. Here’s 50 years of data, from the CDIAC, expressed in tonnes of carbon ©, not CO2:

       Total       Atmos.

Year Emitted Increase Sequestered

1950____1.63____0.43____1.20
1951____1.77____0.85____0.91
1952____1.80____0.85____0.94
1953____1.84____0.85____0.99
1954____1.87____1.07____0.80
1955____2.04____1.28____0.76
1956____2.18____1.28____0.90
1957____2.27____1.28____0.99
1958____2.33____1.49____0.84
1959____2.46____1.49____0.97
1960____2.58____1.49____1.09
1961____2.59____1.14____1.45
1962____2.70____1.31____1.39
1963____2.85____1.36____1.49
1964____3.01____1.44____1.57
1965____3.15____1.61____1.53
1966____3.31____1.86____1.44
1967____3.41____2.08____1.33
1968____3.59____2.25____1.34
1969____3.80____2.34____1.46
1970____4.08____2.34____1.73
1971____4.23____2.40____1.83
1972____4.40____2.55____1.85
1973____4.64____2.60____2.03
1974____4.64____2.48____2.16
1975____4.62____2.41____2.20
1976____4.89____2.61____2.27
1977____5.03____2.94____2.09
1978____5.10____3.16____1.93
1979____5.39____3.23____2.16
1980____5.32____3.16____2.16
1981____5.16____3.07____2.08
1982____5.11____3.06____2.05
1983____5.10____3.15____1.95
1984____5.27____3.24____2.04
1985____5.43____3.30____2.13
1986____5.60____3.46____2.13
1987____5.73____3.70____2.03
1988____5.95____3.75____2.21
1989____6.07____3.48____2.59
1990____6.14____3.04____3.10
1991____6.23____2.64____3.59
1992____6.10____2.47____3.63
1993____6.10____2.65____3.45
1994____6.23____3.10____3.13
1995____6.40____3.50____2.90
1996____6.55____3.71____2.83
1997____6.68____3.85____2.84
1998____6.67____3.88____2.79
1999____6.51____3.57____2.95
2000____6.67____3.06____3.61

As you can see, the amount sequestered has increased annually. This is because the amount sequestered is related to the total atmospheric excess CO2 – the more excess, the more is sequestered.

Using Excel, it’s easy to figure the size of the exponent involved in this exponential decay. However, even without any calculation, you should be able to see that if the size of the emissions were to be held constant, eventually the amount sequestered would equal the amount added, and the atmospheric concentration would then stabilize at a new level.

You could think of it as having a hose filling a swimming pool with a drain at the bottom. The deeper that the water gets in the pool, the faster it runs out of the bottom, because of the increased pressure as the pool gets deeper. Eventually, the amount entering and leaving will be the same, and the level of the pool will stabilize.

If we increase the amount of water coming out of the hose into the pool, the level in the pool will not increase indefinitely. Instead, it will reach a new equilibrium, at a deeper level, where the new higher outflow matches the new higher inflow.

The same is true of the atmospheric CO2. If we add a steady amount to the atmosphere, a new higher equilibrium will be reached.

Let me know which part of this seems unclear to you, and I’ll dig up some citations that address your concerns.

w.

50

I would like to apologize for insinuating that intention might have been one of the 60 signers of that document. He’s not. On the other hand, his employer would not only be hurt by global warming, but it would even be hurt badly by the mere acceptance of global warming by potential customers.

When are we going to finally get a naysayer who doesn’t have an actual financial agenda in this?

51

intention: That data looks to be actually compatible with the hypothesis that the fraction of the amount emitted that gets sequestered is roughly constant. I.e., while the amount sequestered has risen, so has the amount emitted (and, likewise, the amount that remains in the atmosphere each year). Roughly speaking, it looks like a little under half of the emissions each year are getting sequestered and half are staying in the atmosphere (although there are significant variations in this from year to year). And, I know there are good physical reasons for actually believing that some of the sinks might start to saturate…or even that there may be emission from places where the permafrost starts to melt, although fortunately we don’t seem to see any evidence yet of a dramatic change in the fraction being absorbed.

So, can you find any support in the scientific literature for your hypothesis that if we held our emissions constant, the fraction sequestered would start to significantly increase over time?

52

[QUOTE=DMC]
I would like to apologize for insinuating that intention might have been one of the 60 signers of that document. He’s not. On the other hand, his employer would not only be hurt by global warming, but it would even be hurt badly by the mere acceptance of global warming by potential customers.

When are we going to finally get a naysayer who doesn’t have an actual financial agenda in this?
[/QUOTE]

Ummm … well, since at the moment I’m retired (once again following my lifetime motto of “Retire Early … And Often”), it’s kind of hard to imagine what my financial agenda in all of this might be.

I am by profession a Generalist, and by avocation a Climate Researcher. I have never received a penny for my research, I do it because the subject fascinates me.

Prior to retiring this time, I worked as the Construction Manager for a resort in Fiji. Now I suppose that if all of the potential customers were to decide to stay home, the business would suffer … but on the other hand, the resort won’t be completed for ten years, and I’ll be 60 next year, so it’s unlikely that even if I stayed it would make the slightest difference to my ongoing lack of affluence.

I am, however, astounded at the length that you would go to in an effort to blacken my name. By your tortured reasoning, everyone on the planet has a “financial agenda” in global warming and thus can’t be trusted.

Also, I am not a “naysayer”. I call them as I see them, yea or nay. I am a scientist and among other things, an excellent mathematician and a computer expert. I have built computer models and am well aware of their limitations, I wrote my first computer program in 1963. I have a published, peer-reviewed “Communication Arising” in Nature magazine regarding climate change, as well as an article on climate change in Energy and Environment. I am currently working on a study analysing the results of how nine climate models hindcast the 1979-2000 tropical surface temperature … for what it’s worth, the short version of the study is, only one of them came even close to being lifelike … and several of them hindcast results that were far beyond anything ever observed.

But none of my background matters, none of my other work matters, because as I have said several times in this thread, science is a bit different from other pursuits.

Yes, as someone pointed out, if the president of a tobacco company says that cigarettes won’t kill you, this is an opinion. And as such, we should definitely look at who he works for to see if there is a suggestion of bias.

If a scientist, on the other hand, says that there was an 11% increase in small-cell lung cancer in the smokers in a sample of 500 people that she studied, there is no need to know a single fact about her. Neither her employer, her age, her education, nor the size of her paycheck makes the slightest bit of difference regarding the validity of her study. What is important is the study itself - was it done properly, was it double-blind, were the subjects truly picked randomly, was the statistical work done correctly, were there errors in the experimental protocols, and so on.

Anything else is an “ad hominem” argument about the woman, and has no place in a scientific discussion.

w.

PS – Many of the “yeasayers” in this debate have a huge financial interest in the “existence” of anthropogenic global warming.

Few of those who are unconvinced of the reality of AGW would lose their jobs if AGW proves to be a chimera. For example, it would make no financial difference to me either way … but a large number of the yeasayers only have jobs because of the perceived AGW threat. They stand to lose much more than the odd grant from some foundation – their entire career is on the line. As such, they have a much greater pressure to slant their research than just about any naysayer you can name.

However, once again, this makes not one iota of difference regarding the validity of the scientific work done by either group. If their science is good, it will stand the test of time, even if Dick Cheney signs their paycheck (shudder, grab for the garlic, make hasty signs to ward off evil) … if not, their science will fall by the wayside, no matter who signs on the dotted line …

53

[QUOTE=jshore]
intention: That data looks to be actually compatible with the hypothesis that the fraction of the amount emitted that gets sequestered is roughly constant. I.e., while the amount sequestered has risen, so has the amount emitted (and, likewise, the amount that remains in the atmosphere each year). Roughly speaking, it looks like a little under half of the emissions each year are getting sequestered and half are staying in the atmosphere (although there are significant variations in this from year to year). And, I know there are good physical reasons for actually believing that some of the sinks might start to saturate…or even that there may be emission from places where the permafrost starts to melt, although fortunately we don’t seem to see any evidence yet of a dramatic change in the fraction being absorbed.

So, can you find any support in the scientific literature for your hypothesis that if we held our emissions constant, the fraction sequestered would start to significantly increase over time?
[/QUOTE]

jshore, thanks for your reply. Actually, it doesn’t work as you have hypothesized, that a certain fraction of the amount emitted is sequestered. The amount sequestered is closely related, not to the amount emitted, but to the amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

This can be verified by a thought experiment. Suppose we shut down all emissions, and next year emitted no CO2 at all. By your theory, none of the additional CO2 which has been added over the last century would be sequestered, because the emissions are zero and thus (by your theory) the amount sequestered, a constant fraction of the emissions, is also zero. Thus, your hypothesis can’t be correct.

Instead, it is a constant fraction of the additional cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere that is sequestered. To date, there is no indication that that fraction is decreasing. This can be determined directly by analysing the amount sequestered over time, to see if the sequestration fraction has been decreasing. It has not.

There is a large amount of speculation that this situation will change at some time in the future. However, the fact that it has not measurably changed in the last century, despite a large percentage increase in CO2, argues against that speculation. Remember, the absolute numbers are quite small – CO2 has gone from 0.00027 of the atmosphere to 0.00038 of the atmosphere. There is no evidence that this small change has altered the carbon cycle in a measurable way.

In fact, it is possible that the biosphere has increased its CO2 uptake. The planet is currently “greening”, as revealed by satellite studies. Whether this is due to increased CO2, and whether this change will increase the sequestration of CO2, is unknown but certainly possible. So there is speculation in both directions, but precious little evidence. Another unresolved mystery of the climate, about which we know so little, and have so much to learn.

w.

54

Yes, but what about the bigger fraction of emitted CO2 which isn’t sequestered? That merely serves to increase the atmospheric concentration, like I’ve said all along. It is perfectly simple: If only a fraction of what we emit is sequestered, and we keep emitting every year, then the atmospheric concentration will keep rising. At the moment the rate is +>2 ppm per year. Even if this stays constant and, by some unexpected means, the biosphere sponge doesn’t become saturated leading to rates of +3 ppm per year or more, that still doubles the concentration this century compared to the historic level of 280 ppm. The overwhelming majority of climatologists say that such a doubling would cost a great deal of money from floods, desertification and extreme weather events.

Yes, it is possible, but do you know how it will be possible? Only by (expensively) planting vast new forests and, more importantly, not cutting down another single square mile of the incredibly efficient CO2 sinks we already have, called rainforests. I leave it to you to guess which of these two is happening, and which isn’t.

intention, I hope you believe me when I say that I hope you’re right, I really do: That some utterly unexpected (nay miraculous) mechanism will kick in and somehow start absorbing the vast quantities of CO2 we emit every year which the bioshpere doesn’t currently absorb, such that the concentration levels off somewhere below 600 ppm; Or, that 600 ppm will, somehow, not raise global temperatures like it does in laboratory tests of the greenhouse effect of certain gases; Or, that extreme weather events will, somehow, become less common even if the temperature rises by 2 or 3 degrees.

In fact I am, utterly hypocritically, part of the problem. Last year I flew to Australia, and after years catching the bus I started to drive to work. I cannot honestly say that I am all that bothered about what happens to the climate after I’m dead. Indeed, I count myself extraordinarily lucky that I live in that tiny window of history when air travel to beautiful parts of a climatically stable world is so affordable.

So, what you and I are really doing here is making a bet, the stake for which is the goodwill borne toward us by our grandchildren. If, somehow, you’re right and no DAI comes to pass, they might feel a little disappointed that the economy they inherit from us isn’t quite as strong as it could have been, the equivalent of a slight depreciation of the family mansion, say. Even then, I think they’d understand, and even find it touching, that we had their best interest at heart. In 50 years time, when I’m 83, I’d be happy to log onto whatever this message board becomes (heck, I’ll even appear personally via hologram!) and applaud you, intention, and say I feel rather foolish for feeling bad about flying to Australia.

But if I, and Jim Hansen, and the International Panel on Climate Change, is right, then my grandchildren will spit on my grave for not arguing with people like you more forcefully. Only time will tell. I think an annual CO2 increase of over 3 ppm in the next few years will be serious cause for concern. I’d start wishing for your miracle all the harder.

55

Thanks for the response, but what I asked for was a cite giving a specific and convincing explanation of your particular hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 will level off at about 480 ppm if we keep our emissions rate constant. I mean, if this is such “basic atmospheric science” as you claim, then surely you’re not the only one who knows about it, right? You must be able to find a reputable scientific source that explains the physical mechanism of this hypothesized stabilization in detail, rather than just relying on your own rather vague analogies about filling swimming pools.

Because your swimming-pool analogy is not at all convincing. Sure, I get the point about how it’s possible to reach a new equilibrium if the increased pressure of the water brings the rate of drainage equal with the rate of filling. But that doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed to happen. If I fill up the pool with a couple of fire-hoses, for example, I might easily raise the water level faster than the drain can carry the excess away, even with the increased pressure of the extra water.

(In fact, I just did a similar experiment with a paper cup from the water cooler: I punched a hole in the bottom of it and then trickled water from the tap into it. At first it started filling up, but as I tweaked the tap I got it so that it was draining about as fast as it was filling. But then I opened up the tap and the inflow simply overwhelmed the outflow. Kaboom, full and overflowing cup of water.)

AFAICT, that’s exactly the situation we seem to have now with human-generated atmospheric CO2. We’re pumping into the pool with a big old fire-hose, faster than the drain can carry all the additional water away, so the water level just keeps rising. In addition, based on what jshore and Sentient have pointed out about the saturation of carbon sinks, the more we pump, the more likely it is that the pool drain will get partly plugged up, thus raising the water level even faster.

In such a situation, we’d have to be idiots to keep merrily pumping away while assuming that somehow the drain capacity will increase to allow a new equilibrium level to be reached before the pool overflows.

But as jshore pointed out, the amount being emitted has also been increasing over the past fifty years. The data you used for your calculations doesn’t match your initial assumption that emissions rates are constant.

Which makes it all the more important to play the cards fairly. No dealing off the bottom of the deck with misleading claims about the science. This is what bothers me most about intention’s arguments: not the fact that he personally believes that there’s going to be some phenomenon that somehow prevents significant climate change, but the possibility that he may be misrepresenting the science to argue claims that just aren’t true. The continued lack of documentation for this “480 ppm equilibrium” hypothesis is making me somewhat suspicious.

56

[QUOTE=intention]
Ummm … well, since at the moment I’m retired (once again following my lifetime motto of “Retire Early … And Often”), it’s kind of hard to imagine what my financial agenda in all of this might be.
[/QUOTE]
Then I’ll change my statement to “had” from “have”.

The length? You provided us with your name, and about 15 seconds after googling it, I turned up the rest.

Which reminded me of the creationist argument of “we don’t see evolution happening so it doesn’t exist”.

As far as I know, that “article” in E&E was an opinion piece, and the peers which reviewed it were provided by you.

57

This is a little misleading, don’t you think? You were merely questioning a few very specific measurements of a lake in Fiji, and even then the original authors subsequently replied to you. Since the reply is not accessible, could you reprint the key quotes here for us?

58

?? Isn’t the reply you’re talking about accessible
here?

As long as we’re nitpicking publication details (and assuming that any of these publications are actually the ones that intention was talking about—AFAIK, intention himself has not so far provided any links to his own publications), I’m wondering about intention’s claim that his original “Brief Communication Arising” in Nature was “peer-reviewed”.

I thought (and the journal’s editorial policy statement seems to confirm this) that only “scientific papers” in Nature, i.e., “Articles” or “Letters”, go through a formal peer review process. Other items such as the “Brief Communications” don’t.

59

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
?? Isn’t the reply you’re talking about accessible
here?
[/QUOTE]
Says it costs $30 for a license to me.

60

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Thanks for the response, but what I asked for was a cite giving a specific and convincing explanation of your particular hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 will level off at about 480 ppm if we keep our emissions rate constant. I mean, if this is such “basic atmospheric science” as you claim, then surely you’re not the only one who knows about it, right? You must be able to find a reputable scientific source that explains the physical mechanism of this hypothesized stabilization in detail, rather than just relying on your own rather vague analogies about filling swimming pools.

Because your swimming-pool analogy is not at all convincing. Sure, I get the point about how it’s possible to reach a new equilibrium if the increased pressure of the water brings the rate of drainage equal with the rate of filling. But that doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed to happen. If I fill up the pool with a couple of fire-hoses, for example, I might easily raise the water level faster than the drain can carry the excess away, even with the increased pressure of the extra water.

(In fact, I just did a similar experiment with a paper cup from the water cooler: I punched a hole in the bottom of it and then trickled water from the tap into it. At first it started filling up, but as I tweaked the tap I got it so that it was draining about as fast as it was filling. But then I opened up the tap and the inflow simply overwhelmed the outflow. Kaboom, full and overflowing cup of water.)

AFAICT, that’s exactly the situation we seem to have now with human-generated atmospheric CO2. We’re pumping into the pool with a big old fire-hose, faster than the drain can carry all the additional water away, so the water level just keeps rising. In addition, based on what jshore and Sentient have pointed out about the saturation of carbon sinks, the more we pump, the more likely it is that the pool drain will get partly plugged up, thus raising the water level even faster.

In such a situation, we’d have to be idiots to keep merrily pumping away while assuming that somehow the drain capacity will increase to allow a new equilibrium level to be reached before the pool overflows.
But as jshore pointed out, the amount being emitted has also been increasing over the past fifty years. The data you used for your calculations doesn’t match your initial assumption that emissions rates are constant.
Which makes it all the more important to play the cards fairly. No dealing off the bottom of the deck with misleading claims about the science. This is what bothers me most about intention’s arguments: not the fact that he personally believes that there’s going to be some phenomenon that somehow prevents significant climate change, but the possibility that he may be misrepresenting the science to argue claims that just aren’t true. The continued lack of documentation for this “480 ppm equilibrium” hypothesis is making me somewhat suspicious.
[/QUOTE]

You know what? Stuff it. Play the cards fairly? Suspicious?

I am an honest man. I’m in the process of moving half way around the world, I’m doing what I can to keep this discussion going, I’m explaining things to people who don’t seem to have a clue, who haven’t done the math, but who want to tell me my math is “suspicious”.

I’ve been out all evening at a going away party with people who treat each other honestly and decently, and I come back to find you are accusing me of being a suspicious person who cheats at cards. You have claimed falsely that I am motivated by financial gain. You have lied in your claim that I said E&E was peer reviewed, which I never said. You have claimed that I misrepresented my “Communications Arising” in Nature, which was peer reviewed … I described it exactly as it was, a peer-reviewed Communication Arising. There was no misrepresentation. You haven’t even read the piece, or perhaps you are dumb enough to think that Lake Tanganyika is in Fiji … what have you done that entitles you to sneer at my work?

I don’t know about how you were raised, but no man can call me a liar and a card cheat and claim I’m driven by money and lie about what I’ve said about my work, and then expect to be treated as though they were a worthwhile human being. You can kiss my fundamental orifice with your nasty insinuations and false accusations.

Stuff it. I’ve explained it to you. You think your !@#$%^& fire hose has “filled up” the cup? The CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.00038 … does that sound full to you. Get a grip. CO2 is up to 0.00038, and you claim it’s full and overflowing, and that somehow exponential decay no longer works … and you call me a liar and a cheat?

THINK ABOUT IT. I HAVE POINTED OUT THE DATA. I DID THE MATH, AND TOLD YOU THE EXACT METHOD AND THE RESULT. NOW, YOU DO THE MATH. IF YOU CAN’T DO THE MATH, TOUGH, BUT DON’T ACCUSE ME OF CHEATING AT CARDS JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE TOO UNEDUCATED TO DO THE MATH.

You guys are too much. I give up. The thread is yours, and it is dead. You win by accumulated insult. Congratulations. Hope you feel good.

w.