2 January at 21:59 ∑
"Exxon originally reported smaller figures for the methane leak, though the company now accepts this paper's numbers, according to the Times. A company spokesman, Casey Norton, told the Times that the event was an 'anomaly.' He added that Exxon scientists would 'sit down' with the researchers in the new study to see how the company might avoid under reporting methane leaks in the future." 🤣🤣🤣
[Nice of the researchers to offer to help Exxon stop lying, but wouldn't it be nice if we had a real EPA, or if the federal government didn't subsidize the fossil fuel industries to the tune of $20 billion/yr., with 20% of that going to Big Coal, 80% to Big Oil and Gas?)
Richard Sexton Methane breaks down in 7 years and poses no threat to human health.
There is another:
America's massive methane mystery: Unexplained hotspot over Southwest
Hide 22 replies
Aaron Aarons Richard Sexton Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2, most of it doesn't break down in 7 years, and each molecule that breaks down produces one molecule of CO2.
Richard Sexton Uh no. False for a few reasons.
1) It does indeed break down in 7 years, all of it.
2) It's used directly by plants. This is botany 101.
3) There's a myth CO2 affects climate. More peope believe in angels than believe this, slightly less than those who beliee in astrology.
If you look for proof, in writing, CO2 affects climate, you will only find it one place, in an experiment the IPCC conducted between 1998 and 2008 that is documented in thr 2012 IPCC Final Report.
If I may draw your attention to the graph showing CO2 and Temperature they show, what do you think those 75% error bars mean?
If you don't have high school math it means there is no proof Co2 affects the climate. What you believe and what you for formally prove are a disjoint set.
On this planet, CO2 goes up when it warms and goes down when it cools. It's worked that way for billions of years. Only the untrained believe what the nice man on TV said when he claimed without evidence the reverse is true.
It was hot in the 1930s, hotter than any other time in the 20th century, and CO2 was twice as high then as it is now.
You can't argue this, this is history and this not 1984; you can not change the past by lying about it or being uninformed.
The fake graphs you've seen are "adjusted" - they say that right on them. If they don't adjust them they show no warming.
This is a graph of CO2 and temperatures values from the NOAA, plotted by Burt Rutan. If you think ONE SINGLE DATA POINT is worng, tell me which one.
The source is given and you can check, but you won't find an error.
Tell me if I'm wrong after checking yourself.
Ann Garrison Richard, my Facebook page is not the place for this argument. It gets tedious.
Richard Sexton It is cooler now than the 1930s with half the CO2
Fig 4 from Beck 2007.
Harvard: A new perspective on the 1930s mega-heat waves across central United States
Toronto: This was the worst heat wave in Toronto history
Waves: The Heat Waves Of The 1930ís
Wiki: 1936 North American heat wave
Richard Sexton Ann Garrison it's the perfect page. Its not what you believe Ann, it's what you can prove. If this is not true then you're admitting you're a) closed minded and b) a political propagandist.
It's one thing to say "you're wrong, here's the evidence to prove it" and it's another to say "that's banned speech here, just because". That's for dictators and fascists..
Richard Sexton Historically, temperature causes a rise in CO2. Look for yourself.
Ann Garrison OK, call me those things, a closed minded political propagandist, but please stop taking over my page every time I post anything about climate change.
Richard Sexton Now, you show me a graph you think purports warming and I'll explain why and how it doesn't mean and how you were misled by math tricks.
What exactly do you think "anomalies" and "compared to the average" mean that are on all graphs that pretend it's warming.
They're lying to you and hoping you don't have more than grade 9 math.
Ann Garrison Richard, no one is reading these posts. Facebook is not the place.
Richard Sexton That's like saying "please stop making a fuss every time I say 2+2=7".
I'm trained in this stuff, you're not. We're both interested in the truth.
Aren't we? If you're not let me know.
Ann Garrison This is an argument that belongs elsewhere. If you want to deny that climate change is real and leave a link, OK, but no one reads an exegesis like this on Facebook, including me. Do you see anyone reading and responding to you when you go off like this? You need to take this up in a scientific forum.
Richard Sexton I don't deny anything.
Anytime you claim something without evidence (climate change has never been proven) I will be there to call bullshit.
When you say things that are true, It means something.
Why don't you for once look at what I'm actually saying and not be as concerned with my ability to say it.
But you do what you want. If you want to ne known as a professional liar then do what you want.
Would it actually hurt to vcheck? Don't take my word for it, take this thread to any professor of mathematics and ask them whose right. What if you're wrong? I'm not asking you to take my word for it, you are. That is I'm saying "examine the evidence" while you're saying "I don't care abot evidnce I need you to believe me, my way or the highway".
I'll even bet you a pizza on this Ann if you're game. Actually any amount is fine. Need some names at Berkeley? You can pop over there and ask them in person or I can tag some people there.
Ann Garrison I did not say I don't care about evidence. I said that argument of this length and detail belongs in a scientific forum, not on Facebook. Please note that no one but me is even responding to you. Go argue with Bill McKibben or some other prominent figure of the climate movement.
Seth Rick Richard Sexton https://www.globalresearch.ca/greta-thunberg-big.../5690434
I think pizza is a good idea, maybe if we all got together more and shared food, and knowledge, we would all be better informed , and maybe well fed.
BTw Richard, I do agree, and itís not popular, but I refuse to be mislead by anyone.
Richard Sexton Ann Garrison "argument of this length and detail belongs in a scientific "
Not at all. There is only one number that represents the global average temperature for the year. So since 2000 there are only 29 numbers that matter.
we've hears each year is warmer than the previous for all 20 years.
In reality it cooled. No year was as warm as 1998. And 1998 was not as warm as 1936.
Grocery lists are more complicated than that.
As for the notion CO2 causes warming, you may believe this but there is no scientific evidence it's true. The only purported proof is in the 2012 IPCC report and if you're not sure what "75% error bars" are and why they're a cause fr concern I'm sure you can find out.
" I did not say I don't care about evidence."
The read it. You talk the talk now walk the walk. Or you actually don't care about rational argument and stick to believes no matter what the evidence. That's religion not science.
If you believe I am wrong why is it you can't prove it?
Dave Binotto Come to Australia Richard and see how cool itís getting down here.
Byron Montgomery Ann Garrison, he can bring it to my wall! There is science to refute him, I'd be glad to put together a professor team out of SMU. I believe I can find experts aware of ice core data and really strong on nutational historic motion and the position of tilt leading to 50 years of a mini ice age. That's next. Were in it now. After that, the Earth is going to burn up and desertification will happen, I'll get the professors together, you bring your lies, your trailer park, and the Koch brother that God hath not fully removed yet!
Aaron Aarons Richard Sexton 1) NO chemical substance breaks down 100% in any fixed time. There will be a rate of breakdown that will vary depending on the environment in which the substance is located, but I challenge you to provide verifiable figures for the rate of breakdown in the upper atmosphere. It may *perhaps* be 50% in 7 years, but that would mean 75% in 14 years and 87.5% in 21 years, etc..
Aaron Aarons Richard Sexton If you post your bullshit on 100 people's Facebook pages, probably 95 of them will not be read by people who have the basic skills, time, and inclination to refute it. Why don't you instead point to a single prominent web site where those arguments are made AND where counter-arguments are allowed, instead of claiming that, because Ann Garrison and a few of her Facebook friends don't have the time to refute your arguments, those arguments are valid?
Ann Garrison Seth Rick I agree with every word of that article. 350.org and its idealization of color revolutions is sinister, and it promotes Big Renewables to replace Big Coal and Big Oil and Gas.
Richard Sexton Ann. In 20 years of doing this zero have been able to refuse what I say, because it's factual and I'm trained in this area.
If you think there is a mythical person that can some here and teach me a lesson, bring it. Now. or concene no such thing exists and I'm right and you've been misled.
It's math. Why don't you drag a university professor of mathematics in inere to adjudicate. It's time you learned how statistics work. I can explain it but I can't make you understand.
Ya'll have no data. Just noisy opinions on the order of 'the sky is falling". No it's not chicken little. If you care to look the US NOAA database still shows to this day the hottest yer was 1936.
No person of science gives a shit if you deny this. That has no effect.
The untrained that advance political propaganda are referred to as "useful idiots" by those in power.
No go grab some math types and let's settle this once and for all.
Why don't we make a substantial wager on this, then you can get paid to educate me. Or not.
Any amount is fine. I'd be happy to do it on live TV blindfolded. You?