Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (56296)	7/30/2014 10:51:47 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86363

do the math "Second, 97% of the annual increase is natural, as reported by the EIA" They said 97% of the production, not 97% of the increase. It turns out that the planet also takes up 97% of the production, leaving 3% more, from us, in the atmosphere. "Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the annual uptake and release of carbon dioxide by the land and the ocean had been on average just about balanced. In more recent history, atmospheric concentrations have increased by 80 ppm (parts per million) over the past 150 years" science.nasa.gov "97% of the 100ppm increase over the last 100years is natural and 3ppm may be due to humans burning fossil fuels" LMAO. St. Stupid's Day came late this year.

To: teevee who wrote (56296)	7/31/2014 10:06:01 AM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86363

"Third, 97% of the 100ppm increase over the last 100years is natural and 3ppm may be due to humans burning fossil fuels. " This is very embarrassing for Watts. UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who pointed out the difference in the chart and the issues. I was offered this post by the author in WUWT Tips and Notes, here: wattsupwiththat.com and reproduced below. The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading. Since the original author had worked for the Tucson Citizen I made the mistake of assuming it was properly vetted. The fault is mine for not checking further. But as “pokerguy” notes, it won’t disappear. Mistakes are just as valuable for learning. – Anthony Watts Leo Morgan says: July 29, 2014 at 1:34 am This post is an embarrassing moment for us sceptics. As others have mentioned above, this refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount there. But this has always been a basic tenet of the alarmist’s case. This does not show any conspiracy by the climate faithful, nor any fact concealed by them. It merely shows that the poster(s) have not understood what both sides have been talking about all along. I must clarify that- in fact its likely that the majority of the faithful do believe humanity is the sole cause of atmospheric CO2- but none of the educated among them do believe that. The only thing that could make this more embarrassing would be if Anthony were to delete the post. Fortunately he has more integrity than that. Kudos to all the sceptics who jumped on the mistake and pointed out that the post’s evidence does not support its headline claims. glenncz says: July 29, 2014 at 12:27 am “the Hockey Schtick link doesn’t work. Possibly because the blog post was retracted.” The first comment at the Wry Heat link is from one of the authors: “Denica Bozhinova July 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm A reply from the authors of the scientific article on the “review” on The Hockey Schtick blog has pointed out that the results cited are grossly misinterpreted and the blog has taken down the entire review and following comments.” wattsupwiththat.com