Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Or my frustration at your circular posting.
So once again you are claiming we can't count the Co2 we humans generate. Round and round with no answers. Last lap for me, you go on alone, you might still fool someone.

 

Sorry, but you keep ignoring the point. I'm not sure whether that's willful or you just don't understand.

 

Did you have a provision of AR-6 that you were refuting?

 

Its entire theoretical basis.
The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data
By Kenneth Richard on 18. March 2024

“From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024 It is routinely claimed that a telltale sign human emissions (fossil fuels) have irrevocably altered the atmospheric CO2 concentration is a declining trend in carbon isotope 13 (δ13C), considered an […]

 

Stooping to new levels of LOW. Why would anybody believe anything that is rated "Quackery"?

 

Yeah! Just because the entirety of AR-6 is based on inherently flawed models with virtually infinite degrees of freedom and absolutely no attempt at empirical confirmation doesn't mean that it's any more accurate than a bunch of people making it up as they go to keep their revenue stream alive!

Whatever moron devised that quackery rating deserves to be believed! Despite the fact that that moron can't be identified!

Because, you know, science! Dang it!

 

You regard peer-reviewed research as quackery? Interesting.

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024

 

I am not a Climatologist, so I defer to their expertise, and 99% of them cite greenhouse gases as the main warming mechanism. A level of QUACKERY is a pretty strong rating. If you want to pursue articles published by that organization, have at it. I am not going to give them the time of day.

 

Do you think the monsters will go away if you hide your head under the covers?

 

So you've got nothing.

Got it.

 

Quack, Quack, Quack!

 

Just keep in mind that we're the ones posting peer-reviewed research. You're the one posting nonsense, insults and claims without evidence.

 

Like I said, if somebody believes in Flat Earth Theory, it's up to them to cite the evidence in Round Earth Theory that they are refuting. You post Pseiudoscience that is ranked in the Quackery level, and expect people to objectively analyze it. Cite the provions in AR-6 that your are refuting.

 

You assume people need to convince you for some silly reason.

Eventually the IPCC fraud will be its own undoing. I'm guessing sooner rather than later.

At that point we'll be free to enjoy the death of creeping fascism. And you'll be left to deal with your cognitive dissonance.

Enjoy!

 

Is it your claim that the peer-reviewed research result that I posted is "quackery?" Or did you just get mixed up again?

As for refutation, let's start with:

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis was released on 9 August 2021.
Summary for Policymakers
A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. . . .


Sixth Assessment Report

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
https://www.ipcc.ch › assessment-report › ar6

During the sixth assessment cycle ( October 2015 to July 2023) the IPCC produced the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) with contributions by its three Working ...

 

More climate silliness down under.
Study: Aussie Outback Carbon Offset Tree Planting “… not reducing emissions as promised …”
Eric Worrall
Another carbon offset success story?

 

Fair enough, so next time you post something from a reputable origin (or even one of the disreputable ones), regarding human influence on climate change, perhaps you can make it clear that you disagree with IPCC AR-6, A.1.

 

Hate to keep nitpicking your links (or maybe not), but the source for this article which was repeated by the biased WUWT is Nature.com. Now Nature.com is a reputable source, so why not source from there, or at the minimum state the origin in your text. although I can't speak for others, I will certainly be more apt to read it.

 

Trees, grasses, and other plants are very important to sequestering CO2 in the atmosphere, however they can't possibly sequester enough to counteract the massive amounts of CO2 that go into the atmosphere daily.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon-capture-deforestation

Earth’s forests absorb, on average, 16 billion metric tons of CO2 annually, researchers reported in the March Nature Climate Change. But human activity can turn forests into sources of carbon: Thanks to land clearing, wildfires and the burning of wood products, forests also emit an estimated 8.1 billion tons of the gas back to the atmosphere.

That leaves a net amount of 7.6 billion tons of CO2 absorbed by forests per year — roughly a fifth of the 36 billion tons of CO2 emitted by humans in 2019.

 

WUWT is an aggregator which collects, posts and links peer-reviewed research and other commentary. Your irrational prejudices (and the limits you thereby place on yourself) do not interest me. Read or don't read, as you think best.

 

It was the alarmists who advocated for the initiative. Add it to the list of their bad ideas.

 

Just a recommendation if you want to be taken seriously by anybody in the Climate Science field, or those who pursue articles written by those in that field.

 

I go my own way, thanks. The prejudice behind the formulation "be taken seriously" tells me all I need to know about why many in other disciplines regard climate science as a risible and politically tainted enterprise.

 

Uh-huh... You are now totally misrepresenting (and/or cherry-picking) your own article, which states the following:

It helps that everybody likes trees. “There’s no anti-tree lobby. [Trees] have lots of benefits for people. Not only do they store carbon, they help provide clean air, prevent soil erosion, shade and shelter homes to reduce energy costs and give people a sense of well-being.”
...
But increasingly, scientists warn that reducing emissions alone won’t be enough to bring Earth’s thermostat back down. “We really do need an all-hands-on-deck approach,” Fargione says. Specifically, researchers are investigating ways to actively remove that carbon, known as negative emissions technologies. Many of these approaches, such as removing CO2 directly from the air and converting it into fuel, are still being developed.

But trees are a ready kind of negative emissions “technology,” and many researchers see them as the first line of defense.

 

From the Nature paper, linked in the WUWT post:

Carbon offsets have been a central feature of climate policy in Australia for two decades. Under a provincial mandatory carbon trading scheme (the world’s first) that operated in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory between 2003 and 2012 covered facilities were allowed to use offsets from designated project types to meet their emission reduction obligations28. In late 2011, a national carbon offset scheme was introduced, which was relied upon as the main Australian Government mitigation policy between 2014 and 202229. The object of the national offset scheme is to incentivise offset projects that help Australia meet its international greenhouse gas mitigation obligations29. Each credit issued under the scheme is supposed to represent abatement equivalent to one tonne of CO2.

The national offset scheme is now linked to a national mandatory carbon pricing instrument; the Safeguard Mechanism. As with the previous provincial carbon trading scheme, facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism can use credits issued under the offset scheme to meet their emission reduction obligations. There are no restrictions on the extent to which covered facilities can rely on offset credits to meet their obligations. The only relevant restriction is that the credits must come from projects registered under the national scheme.