Meh, who cares about peak CO2 per person? Nobody. A little more or less CO2 isn’t going to make any difference anyway.
Most of the CO2mmunists are also rabidly anti nuclear so you know CO2 isn’t actually the problem.
Hi Mike, you write: “Meh, who cares about peak CO2 per person?”
All (well, 97% of) the modelers of the UN-IPCC begin their “science” with axiomatic postulates about population, emissions, and “business as usual”. The models vary inputs year by year, adding the assumption that the only way population trends, or emission trends, or business trends, would ever change would be due to government and social control.
Proving, by direct measurement, that the postulates are incorrect should cause some re-analysis. Kind of like recognizing that if parallel lines DO meet at one point, you’re not doing your geometry on an infinite flat plane anymore.
People may (and do) quibble about the logical steps going into a climate model and the math used to quantify those steps. (And, similarly, some of of quibble about using “grid cell” plane geometry data to model movement across the face of a globe…) But quantifiable refutation of fundamental premises is a different order of difficulty for the discipline.
Proving, by direct measurement, that the postulates are incorrect should cause some re-analysis.
This made me chuckle. You are certainly right except that the gullible warming community never acknowledges being wrong no matter how many times they are wrong.
“Should” is such a special word. Still such things may mean that the “gullible warming community” shrinks a bit in the future.
Meh, who cares about peak CO2 per person? Nobody. A little more or less CO2 isn’t going to make any difference anyway.
Most of the CO2mmunists are also rabidly anti nuclear so you know CO2 isn’t actually the problem.
Hi Mike, you write: “Meh, who cares about peak CO2 per person?”
All (well, 97% of) the modelers of the UN-IPCC begin their “science” with axiomatic postulates about population, emissions, and “business as usual”. The models vary inputs year by year, adding the assumption that the only way population trends, or emission trends, or business trends, would ever change would be due to government and social control.
Proving, by direct measurement, that the postulates are incorrect should cause some re-analysis. Kind of like recognizing that if parallel lines DO meet at one point, you’re not doing your geometry on an infinite flat plane anymore.
People may (and do) quibble about the logical steps going into a climate model and the math used to quantify those steps. (And, similarly, some of of quibble about using “grid cell” plane geometry data to model movement across the face of a globe…) But quantifiable refutation of fundamental premises is a different order of difficulty for the discipline.
This made me chuckle. You are certainly right except that the gullible warming community never acknowledges being wrong no matter how many times they are wrong.
“Should” is such a special word. Still such things may mean that the “gullible warming community” shrinks a bit in the future.