http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels.html According to this paper, only about 15 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere are due to burning fossil fuels.That's drivel, of course. Its by "Paul Homewood". Its source is Only about 3% of CO2 in atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels at "www.climatechangedispatch.com", whose source, in turn, is http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html. Which, as NS points out, has suddenly and mysteriously vanished.
This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there. Plus some other stuff convenient to place here. And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.
Thursday, 24 July 2014
Only about 3% of CO2 in atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels | Climate Change Dispatch
More denialist wackoism. From Only about 3% of CO2 in atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels | Climate Change Dispatch (via Adjusting the past by the eminently sane NS, who explains the background:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(sat in moderation for only a little while)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley PERMALINK
July 24, 2014 8:19 am
CCD doesn’t seem to have noticed, and neither of you, but the original HS post (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html) has vanished, because they were embarrassed when they realised how stupid and wrong it is.
Your “According to this paper, only about 15 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere are due to burning fossil fuels” is wrong, of course – that isn’t what the paper says.
Will this post vanish? Or will it be corrected? Or will you just leave it up and hope no-one notices that its foundations are gone?
(gets reply):
DeletePaul Homewood PERMALINK*
July 24, 2014 9:56 am
I’m awaiting clarification on this.
BTW I don’t “disappear” posts!
(I also left a comment at http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels.html; there's a cite for it):
ReplyDelete# William Connolley 2014-07-24 06:14
> the results cited are grossly misinterpreted and the blog has taken down the entire review and following comments.
Ha ha. So the HS was so badly embarrassed by their stupidity that they couldn't even bear to print a correction - it had to vanish.
But this blog is not embarrassed by its stupidity - it happily leaves this nonsense uncorrected and pointing to a vanished source.