4 ms·

Only 12% of the emissions since 1750 were man made, so there's not really any significant difference we can make. https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fullt

Only 12% of the emissions since 1750 were man made, so there's not really any significant difference we can make. https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/...

xupybd 3y ago
Wow, I've not heard about this paper. I'm surprised it hasn't made more news.
- bratbag 3y ago
  Because it was ripped apart fairly quickly.
  - xupybd 3y ago
    I would have thought that would have made some noise. I'm not saying I think it's correct. I'm saying it's shocking and I'd have thought would have at least stirred up some publicity.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      There's no publicity needed to contradict a paper which wasn't publicized in the first place.
      - xupybd 3y ago
        None needed, correct. But it's common for shocking things to generate publicity.
        uoaei 3y ago
        No, it's common for publicized things to be shocking. Yours is a classic error in Bayesian reasoning.
        xupybd 3y ago
        I bet you're fun at parties.
        uoaei 3y ago
        Love how it always ends with an insult with you people.
        xupybd 3y ago
        I'm not sure who the people group is that you're assigning to me. But if your were wondering why I reacted this way. I felt that you were needling me. "I bet you're fun at parties" is a way of saying you're being too pedantic. It wasn't meant to hurt your feelings up it's a way of pushing back. Yes your correct but did you're not being very gracious about it.
        uoaei 3y ago
        It's generally easier in these situations if the person who is wrong doesn't continue reaching for ways to feel right by imposing some self-serving notion of "grace".
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
Baeocystin 3y ago
Here's the comment describing the previously-linked paper's errors, and a call for its retraction: https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/651497915/Comment_on_World_Atmospheric_CO2_Its_14C.13.pdf https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/651497915/Comment_... [edit] Corrected because, well, accuracy matters!
- xupybd 3y ago
  Not technically a paper, it's a comment. That doesn't detract from the comments point or validity.

xupybd 3y ago

Wow, I've not heard about this paper. I'm surprised it hasn't made more news.

bratbag 3y ago
Because it was ripped apart fairly quickly.
- xupybd 3y ago
  I would have thought that would have made some noise. I'm not saying I think it's correct. I'm saying it's shocking and I'd have thought would have at least stirred up some publicity.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    There's no publicity needed to contradict a paper which wasn't publicized in the first place.
    - xupybd 3y ago
      None needed, correct. But it's common for shocking things to generate publicity.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        No, it's common for publicized things to be shocking. Yours is a classic error in Bayesian reasoning.
        xupybd 3y ago
        I bet you're fun at parties.
        uoaei 3y ago
        Love how it always ends with an insult with you people.
        xupybd 3y ago
        I'm not sure who the people group is that you're assigning to me. But if your were wondering why I reacted this way. I felt that you were needling me. "I bet you're fun at parties" is a way of saying you're being too pedantic. It wasn't meant to hurt your feelings up it's a way of pushing back. Yes your correct but did you're not being very gracious about it.
        uoaei 3y ago
        It's generally easier in these situations if the person who is wrong doesn't continue reaching for ways to feel right by imposing some self-serving notion of "grace".
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

Baeocystin 3y ago

Here's the comment describing the previously-linked paper's errors, and a call for its retraction: https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/651497915/Comment_on_World_Atmospheric_CO2_Its_14C.13.pdf https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/651497915/Comment_... [edit] Corrected because, well, accuracy matters!

xupybd 3y ago
Not technically a paper, it's a comment. That doesn't detract from the comments point or validity.