Very well put, there are certainly many things we can agree on :-).
Another point seldom made is that the Sahel was nicely green a thousand years ago, with quite significant settlements of which only traces now remain in utterly barren desert, that wiped them out 500 years ago.
Well I suppose we can rule out Bob Geldof as being responsible for THAT one.
Indeed. Nature has done a wonderful job of automatically correcting for all that CO2 produced in the 20th century, keeping the levels perfectly in balance through the simple fact that plants mop up CO2. That's just what they do. If that were not the case, we'd have been looking at stratospheric levels of the gas in the atmosphere long before now.
Did Lavoisier measure the CO2 content of air?
In normal parlance, "whatever" means a grudging agreement. We must all be too thick to understand your secret evidence.
I've looked at all your evidence and can't see that indicated CO2 levels were higher than 400ppm at the turn of the 20th century.
I have, and there isn't any evidence.
Two more righttard liars agreeing with each other - what a surprise!
You can see the effect of photosynthesis in the latitude dependence of the CO2 levels. There is a hell of lot more high latitude land with 24/7 northern hemisphere summer sunshine. The trend is ever upwards and the tiny yield improvements in some plants does not compensate for it.
Try reading the article. Forget about CO2 for a minute and focus on this aspect:
" It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry stem largely from his changing the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one. "
You haven't looked at *any* of my evidence so don't try to pretend you have.
Whatever. You seem to be confusing me with someone WGAS.
And some Lefttard disagreeing with them - what a surprise!
So how does that help with evidence of CO2 levels in 1900?
If anything his philosophy would be to ignore hearsay without evidence. I still don't understand how this furthers your point regarding CO2 levels in 1900.
You are very presumptuous.
Why do you feel obliged to say that; when there isn't anything remotely associated with quantitative, peer reviewed studies of levels of CO2 in the early 1900s in your "evidence"?
Try looking again and posting it here. I know you won't because you can't.
So best not use "whatever" in this context.
Neither is there any for CO2 levels in 1000AD
Yet ClimbIt Seance Tits will tell you exactly what it was on the basis of a single un 'peer reviewed' bristlecone pine tree.
No, that's a straw man. And you damage your case by stating it. And show that you either do not understand, or have ignored for reasons of winning an argument, the point of peer review.
Science consists of, à là Popper, *inductive* hypotheses about the world. (You would probably, having read "Sherlock Holmes", call them "deductive", but you would be wrong).
From these inductive *propositions* like "There exists a Force, which we shall call gravity, that has a value related to distance and mass by the following formula..." we can then use *deduction* to say that IF such a a force exists THEN it will have the following measurable implications in terms of how material objects behave...and so on. The point being that the Inductive proposition is then used to produce
*testable deductions*.Peer review is not there to test the *measurements*: That is done by replication of the experiments, an entirely different process. The purpose of peer review is to test the deductive logic that gives rise to the testable conclusions so that e,g. someone doesn't say 'IF gravity THEN pigs can fly, and turn round and say, "they can't so Gravity is nonsense". And so on.
In a sense I don't blame you - Climbit Sceance is so full of flummery and deliberate obfuscation that the general public who *think* they are 'well informed' like to bandy phrases like 'peer review' - which in the end means nothing more than a chum checked the maths and logic over and decided to say he found no fault in it, *for whatever reasons*, and 'consensus' which means nothing more than a lot of people with vested interest agree to say more or less the same thing, for fear of losing their jobs...
Someone measured CO2 levels back in the 1880s. And got near as dammit
400ppm. That isn't a hypothesis that needs peer review, that is a measurement that no one would have any reason to lie over.How many more people also measured it, and using what technique, is very unclear. 400 parts per million is a bloody small fraction, and I can well see that the means to measure it might well not have been accurate to much better than ± 100ppm anyway.
Couple that with no real incentive to measure it anyway - I mean it's there, in small fractions as plants grow ok, but so what? - and the natural tendency of scientists to say 'well I got 250 ppm, matey got
450., and the next time I did it I got 370, so probably it is somewhere around 400ppm ± 150ppm to 3?...which is *not incorrect*.Your mistake is to attack on spurious grounds - grounds that show you have no understanding of the scientific process.
Cursitor's mistake is to ascribe more validity to the measurements found in old text books than I suspect they deserve. Back then no-one published error bars, and indeed I am not sure that statistics was even recognised much. Neither have we any idea how these values were determined, nor the errors and precisions of those methods. Nor whether or not the experiments were carried out away from local urban or even human exhaled concentrations of CO?.
So, it might well not be representative of the CO2 levels up a mountain in Hawaii, or in the rest of the atmosphere, but I see no reason to dispute that it was the level the men *measured*.
That was an excellent description of the scientific process. Let's hope we hear no more about 'peer review' being used as a deflection technique in a discussion.
The testable deduction has been used to compare ice core samples with real known atmospheric measurement.
Agreed, so where ice core samples correlate well with known measure CO2 levels they pass peer review.
In short they are better than the sources you mention with imaginary levels of CO2 in 1900.
Please cite the source for this. Is there traceability to a known reference?
My mistake was to ask CD for his non-existent evidence, why do you think otherwise?
Cursitor's mistake was to make claims he could never validate from nevger existing.
What TNP is telling you is that peer review tells you nothing at all. See here:
and then scroll down to the section head starting with: "Millikan's experiment as ..."
Then stop using "peer review" as though having one of those is a passport to paradise and bliss.
I give up. :(
You are losing touch with reality.
You are more and more resembling a troll. If you were posting anonymously I would assume you were Pamela - you are THAT bad.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.