Guest post by David Middleton
Mr. Trump, if you read this post, please ignore these “scientists”…
To President-elect Trump
We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change. We write as concerned individuals, united in recognizing that the science is unequivocal and America must respond.
Climate change threatens… [blah, blah, blah]
[…]
1. Make America a clean energy leader. The vast majority of Americans – whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent – support renewable energy research and deployment5. Embrace the enormous economic opportunities of transitioning to an energy-efficient, low-carbon society6,7. Use part of your $1 trillion commitment to infrastructure development to expand democratized clean energy…
What the frack is “democratized” energy?
2. Reduce carbon pollution and America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Apart from black soot, there’s no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, etc. are carbon compounds. Just in case anyone is unclear on the concept…
A compound is a substance made from two or more elements
that have reacted chemically with each other.
Remember this definition as you might need it in the exam!
A compound is a completely new material that will often have
totally different properties from the elements that made it.
For example
The element sodium is a highly reactive metal.
The element chlorine is a yellow-green poisonous gas (non-metal).
When the two react together they
form a compound called sodium chloride.
Sodium chloride is common salt, which you eat with food.
You would not want to eat the elements!
[…]
M’kay?
The EPA, despite its bogus endangerment finding, doesn’t classify carbon or carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
3. Enhance America’s climate preparedness and resilience. In the past 5 years alone, storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires caused over $250 billion in damages10. As climate change continues to increase the frequency and severity of these extreme events…
Enhancing “climate preparedness and resilience” is always a good idea… However, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that climate change has, is or will “increase the frequency and severity of these extreme events.” Models aren’t evidence. Models with a 95% failure rate are, at best, a failed hypothesis.
4. Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat. If not, you will become the only government leader in the world to deny climate science11. Your position will be at odds with virtually all climate scientists, most economists, military experts, fossil fuel companies and other business leaders, and the two-thirds of Americans worried about this issue1,2,12-15.
Note to “scientists”… We didn’t vote for Donald Trump because he was a lemming.
Climate change is real, always has been, always will be. Mankind’s activities do play an un-determinable role in it and there is no evidence that it is an “urgent threat.” There’s scant evidence that climate change poses a net threat to humanity… much less the planet.
5. Protect scientific integrity in policymaking. During your campaign, you said that your “administration will ensure that there will be [scientific] transparency and accountability without political bias16.”
[…]
Which he’s already doing… EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Cathy McMorris-Rogers, etc.
6. Uphold America’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. Reneging from this treaty…
“America” did not make a “commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement” and it’s not a treaty. The soon-to-be-ex-President made a commitment and then refused to submit his personal commitment to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.
Now that we have addressed their six points, let’s take a look at some selected signatories of this open letter, to better understand their point of view…
Susan Joy Hassol, Director, Climate *Communication*
Good for her!
Richard Heede, Co-Founder & Director, *Climate Accountability* Institute
Richard Heede is the Principal of Climate Mitigation Services, a consultancy focused on climate stewardship from emissions inventories to profitable action. Climate Mitigation Services conducts greenhouse gas inventories, develops protocols, defines emissions boundaries, and identifies technologies and strategies to profitably reduce emissions. Client sectors include municipalities, colleges and universities, corporations, international NGOs, architects, and homeowners.
Very sciency!!!
Dr. Edward Maibach, MPH, PhD, Professor, Department of Communication; Director, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
Dr. Maibach holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego (1980), an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University (1983), and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University (1990).
The author if the 52% consensus, if I remember correctly.
Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Well, there’s at least one real scientist among the signatories… (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). To anyone who missed the sarcasm… There are a lot of real scientists among the signatories.
It appears that about 333 of the 800 “scientists” are students…
Hannah M. Teicher, M.Arch., PhD Student, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jennifer Thomas, PhD Student, Physical Oceanography, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University
Annelise Thompson, PhD Student (artificial photosynthesis), Department of Chemistry, California Institute of Technology
Daniel Traficonte, PhD Student, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Galen Treuer, PhD Student, Environmental Science and Policy, University of Miami
Rebecca Trinh, PhD Student, Biological Oceanography, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Anna Trugman, PhD Student in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University
Cascade Tuholske, PhD Student, Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara
Brendan D. Turley, PhD Student, School of the Earth, Ocean, & Environment, University of South Carolina
Alexander J. Turner, PhD Student in Atmospheric Chemistry, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University
John J. Turner V, PhD Student in Renewable Energy, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of New Hampshire
Samantha Tushaus, Assistant Researcher, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ashlee Tziganuk, PhD Student in Urban Planning, Arizona State University
Natalie Umling, PhD Student in Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina
Sital Uprety, PhD Student in Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Sarah Vitale, PhD Student in Geological Sciences, University of Connecticut
Dr. Britta Voss, PhD in Aquatic Geochemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charlotte Wagner, PhD student, Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University
Nicholas Waldo, PhD Student in Environmental Engineering, University of Washington
Rich Walker, PhD Student, Program in Ecology and Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming
Jessica Wang, PhD student, Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine
Jonathan Wang, PhD Student, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University
Daniel Watkins, PhD Student, Atmospheric Science, Oregon State University
Lance Watkins, PhD Student and Center Lead, NASA DEVELOP National Program, School of Geographical Sciences & Urban Planning, Arizona State University
Katelyn Watson, PhD Student in Geoscience, Boise State University
Caroline Hagan Webb, PhD Student in Hydrology and Geophysics, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Davis
Nick Weber, PhD Student, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
Jennifer Wei, PhD Student, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University
Thomas Weiss, PhD Student in Paleoclimatology, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Ethan Welty, PhD Student, Environmental Studies Program and Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder
Meagan E. Wengrove, PhD Student in Coastal Processes, Department of Ocean Engineering, University of New Hampshire
Katherine Wentz, PhD Student, Environmental Studies Program and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder
Scott Wieman, PhD Student, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Catherine Wilka, PhD Student in Climate Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Elise B. Wilkes, PhD Student, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Emily Williams, MA/PhD Student in Geography, University of California Santa Barbara
Andrew A. Wong, PhD Student, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University
Anna Wuttig, PhD Student in Inorganic Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lilia Xie, PhD Student in Inorganic Chemistry (materials for energy conversion), Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert M. Yantosca, Senior Software Engineer, Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group, Harvard University
Walter Yerk, PhD Student, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University
Suzanne Young, PhD Student, Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida
Karen Yu, PhD Student in Atmospheric Science, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University
Emily Zakem, PhD Student, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
José I. Zenteno, PhD Student of Environmental Science and Management, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara
Xuemei Zhai, PhD Student in Biological Oceanography, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University
Natalie Zielinski, PhD Student in Oceanography, Texas A&M University
Marika Ziesack, PhD Student, Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University
Katelyn Zigner, PhD Student, Department of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara
If anyone is counting, I didn’t list all of them. A word count of “student” returned 333 samples.
Featured Image Borrowed From Here
Pathetic manipulation of students continues in the climate sciences and related pseudosciences
Recently Scientific American equated opposition to catastrophic climate change with people who deny we landed on the moon and people who believe in Alien abductions.
We should expect no more from an “American” magazine owned by Europeans. Sorry, but we threw off the European yoke centuries ago.
Manipulation of students for sure, but they appear to be willing students. Merely looking at the listed majors indicates the careers they hope to pursue. They are the minions who are being lead by those who have developed a vested interest in promoting an alarmist agenda.
As with any opportunistic business they are promoting an agenda based upon economic self-interest.
They are using the basest of motivation methods: Fear sells better than sex.
It appears not everyone worries about getting in bed with the propaganda folks. Selling your soul is much more popular today, it seems.
and profitable
Well, it can make the difference between a mere pass, and a distinction.
AKA: sucking up.
Unfortunately the bed is wet…
Universities now sell the illusion of being educated, rather than the actual experience of being educated. Consequently we now have illusory scientists rather than actual scientists.
Great observation.
Jason, thinking exactly the same thing, just think of the tens of thousands of dollars wasted on useless “degrees” ( pun somewhat intended)
The letter can be distilled into one simple sentence: “Please send money”.
You’re absolutely right!
… or else…
To be more precise, the letter says:
“Please Mr Trump, don’t let our beautiful, comfortable gravy train crash and burn; we don’t want to flip burgers for the rest of our lives, as no real field of science would ever employ a ‘climate scientist’.”
“We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change”
Based on the wording of the first sentence, the human-caused climate change portion is all they are concerned about.
That’s going to take up hardly any of Trump’s time,so he should be able to sort all these “scientists'” concerns in half an hour / 45 minutes tops!
That gives him lots of time to focus on the man(n) made-up climate change stuff – a much more time-consuming and hopefully entertaining challenge.
The challenge has already been thrown down, accepted, met – and destroyed. Now it’s time to be done with this farce and move on to something else – someone named it “making America great again.”
“What the frack is “democratized” energy?” you ask.
That is the position that we should use whatever energy the most people like without regard to whether it is appropriate, practical or economical.
I kind of figured that was the answer…
I thought it was the energy sources preferred by Democrats
DOE Global Energy Storage Database
‘eCAMION Toronto Hydro CES Project’
Commissioned Feb.1, 2013
Lithium Polymer Battery
kW 500
Duration at Rated Power: 30 min.
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/414
CES/Community Energy Storage
DOE Global Energy Storage Database
Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project, California
Commissioned July 1, 2014
Lithium-ion Battery
8,000 kW
Duration at Rated Power: 4 hrs.
Cost ~ $50 million
DOE funding ~ $25 million
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/8
Yes, people get to vote on ideologies and who they want to lead them and make decisions. They don’t get to vote on science and in particular they don’t get to vote on engineering.
Votes on engineering frequently go badly for those in the path of failed engineering… 😉
I thought it had something to do with private/community owned energy generation. In case very small natural gas co-generations were financially viable, it would make sense to produce electricity, while also heating your home. Unlike the silly wind and PVs, heating tends to correlate well with human activities, and energy produced this way would not go to waste.
Trouble is that prices are quite high, and so far this works well only if you are subsidised. And we know subsidies are going to dry out together with the swamp.
It’s a meme like “democratized” Climate Science.
You mean “politicized” Climate Science, surely.
No, I mean exactly what I wrote, in “”
Democratized means that it is controlled by the government.
It’s a far left idea. Very close to “decentralized” energy. It means local (democratic) communities are in control of their own energy and are not dependent on capitalists. It’s one reason the far left oppose nuclear power which they see it as an inherently centralized, or non-democratic form of energy.
Oooh! Can I have my own democrazed nuclear reactor cum range cooker and genset and water heater?
“Democratized” ultimately boils down to “less for everyone”.
I was a lifetime subscriber to SciAm until they started beating the AGW drum. Actually, I was a supporter of the AGW movement until I heard the fateful words “the science is settled.” At that point I suspected the “movement” was selling snake oil. This open letter is just more of the same from them. Pity that they lured so many young budding scientists into the scam.
I believe it was the 1986 Belle Glades mosquitoes with HTLV-III that was the straw that broke that camel’s hump for me.
I am impressed they could get 800 “scientists” to sign it. But I have only one simple request for Trump – restore integrity to science.
And he has already started.
Exactly how is Trump restoring integrity to science?
>>Exactly how is Trump restoring integrity to science?
Holding the DoE to account. That has sent a broadside across all science departments, that they must be accountable for their research and their actions.
I bet that over the last two days government scientists across the US have stopped work, and are concentrating on deleting emails.
R
“Being accountable for their work” – is an extremely vague, fluffy statement that means little. It’s interesting that WUWT over the years has decried (and rightly so) researchers being criticized for skeptical positions. But now that a skeptic is in the White House, it’s OK for the reverse to be occurring.
Nice goal posts, how far have you moved them today?
Nobody has ever complained about skeptics being criticized. That’s part of science.
It’s the punished part that has gotten people upset.
But now that a skeptic is in the White House, it’s OK for the reverse to be occurring.
===================
you missed the point. the public has a right to see the science they have paid for, to know that the results have been verified by someone that is actively trying to disproved them, and to expect that science will NOT BE USED to set policy UNTIL IT IS VERIFIED.
Little to none of this has happened in Climate Science.
1. Climate scientists have actively worked to hide their work, their data and have colluded with other scientists to hide data, hide contrary results and to mislead the public. At least one of the signatories to the above open letter was revealed to be engaged in such practices via the Climategate emails.
2. Skeptical climate scientists that could have provided verification have been dismissed from their jobs in favor of consensus climate scientists. As such, any attempt at verification of consensus climate science results is questionable due to the problem with groupthink. Verification is only valid if the person providing the verification is actually skeptical of the result.
3. Policy prescriptions based on unverified results are a recipe for disaster. Money that could have been spent productively may actually be making the problem worse.
“I bet that over the last two days government scientists across the US have stopped work, and are concentrating on deleting emails.”
Some might be storing and protecting information for the time when they decide to become a whistleblower on the climate data manipulators.
None of the posts here have shown how Trump is restoring integrity to science. He has asked for a list of all scientists who have participated in meetings relating to climate accords or who have done work on AGW related research. If he was restoring integrity, he would be talking about new review policies for publication of papers, etc. Not asking for lists of people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.866363348f7c
Trump is not “doing” anything yet. He is still 5 weeks from having any power. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question?
philjourdan says: “Trump is not “doing” anything yet.”
..
Do you consider mucking up the diplomatic relationship with China not doing anything?
He is doing nothing with the diplomatic relations. Their perception of what MAY be is. Obama is still in charge of diplomatic relations, or have you not heard who won the presidency 4 years ago?
A phony argument (although I’m intrigued that a warmist is suddenly concerned about the reviewing process – whatever argument is useful for the attack, I suppose). Why on earth would Trump want to interfere with the reviewing process? That’s the kind of thing Joseph Stalin was known for, and that didn’t work out too well.
“…impressed they could get 800 “scientists” to sign it”
They didn’t. Many of them are students (almost half ?), marketers and activists.
Always a catch! Yea, I read those comments after mine.
I know how many years ago I gave up on the despicable unScientific American after reading every issue every page for thirty years. What a POS!
We need an alternatively right scientific media that we can trust in addition to the burgeoning alt-right mass media. TRUMP u dingy snowflakes!
++++++++++
The first part contains another logical fallacy:
“…recognizing that the science is unequivocal and America must respond.”
Even if the first part is true (can somebody direct me to the unequivocal papers?), the second part is absolutely not. What problems there may be and how we should best deal with any problems has never been properly set outin any way whatsoever.
Moreover, how we deal with any possible problems is a “political” decision, not a scientific one. By that I mean it is decision we the people should take, not a decision the “experts” should take for us. And people’s views depend on how they think about future innovation, the discount rates (implicit or explicit) they use for future events. and many other things.
If these scientists were being honest, they might say that America must discuss how we should respond.
It is quite obvious that if the science is unequivocal, then CO2 output needs to be reduced and that there are a number of proven renewable energy technologies to achieve that…
can you please do something about your breath?
>> if …
Way to waste a few more million electrons Griff. Since it is far from unequivocal, your sentence is worthless. And then there’s “proven” renewables, the same ones that put SA in the dark, *increased* Germany’s CO2 per Kw/h and are about to leave the poor and elderly freezing to death in their homes in the UK this winter.
Keep telling yourself those lies, and some day even you might start to believe it.
The only real science out there shows that CO2 is highly beneficial to all life on Earth , and that there is absolutely no reason we should ever try to curtail its production, rather we should be aiming to increase the atmospheric CO2 level from its current dangerously low state.
It’s not..so it doesn’t…and they won’t be needed.
then CO2 output needs to be reduced
=======================
nope. that is simply one option. and the option is not practical in many, many places as compared to the alternatives. thus the question of what to do is not a question for science, it is a question of money and priorities, which makes it an economic and political question.
” And then there’s “proven” renewables, the same ones that put SA in the dark, *increased* Germany’s CO2 per Kw/h and are about to leave the poor and elderly freezing to death in their homes in the UK this winter.”
Good way to put it, Pete.
All these “proven renewables” have proven is they are a very bad choice, and we should move on to something else, like nuclear power.
The Greens have no good reason to reject nuclear power, and nuclear power will accomplish one of their major goals which is to reduce CO2 production, and can replace the bird-killing windmills, which *should* be one of their major goals, too.
This past Friday I made the following a Drudge link to a rather hysterical article regarding how radiation from Fukushima had been detected off of LA (I thought that had been done three years ago?). The posters to that site were bemoaning the fact that the Pacific Ocean was about to become a wasteland in which nothing lived and declaring that they would never ever eat sea food again, in order to preserve their health.
The Greens will continue to reject nuclear power because to a man, they are idiots.
Err, “I made the mistake — of following — a Drudge Link”
JUST IN…….BREAKING NEWS!!!!……….Scottish innovation triumphs once again. We gave you the TV, antibiotics, tarmacadam, pneumatic tyres, the telephone, adhesive postage stamps, the bicycle and the U.S. Navy.
Now we announce, for the sake of humanity, the solution to Climate Change! (But you have to visit the dark side where they are jealously withholding this momentous event from you!).
http://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/trending-now/santa-rides-unicycle-plays-flaming-bagpipes-during-first-winter-storm-in-portland/5244475688001
And just for you Griff.
We Scot’s, including Trump, always triumph!
Wha’s Like Us – Damn Few And They’re A’ Deid (Who’s like us – Damn few and they’re all dead).
The average Englishman, in the home he calls his castle, slips into his national costume, a shabby raincoat, patented by chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland. En route to his office he strides along the English lane, surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland.
He drives an English car fitted with tyres invented by John Boyd Dunlop of Dreghorn, Scotland, arrives at the station and boards a train, the forerunner of which was a steam engine, invented by James Watt of Greenock, Scotland. He then pours himself a cup of coffee from a thermos flask, the latter invented by Dewar, a Scotsman from Kincardine-on-Forth.
At the office, he receives the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by James Chalmers of Dundee, Scotland.
During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh, Scotland.
At home in the evening, his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan, blacksmith of Dumfries, Scotland.
He watches the news on his television, an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh, Scotland, and hears an item about the U.S. Navy, founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.
He has by now been reminded too much of Scotland and in desperation, he picks up the Bible only to find that the first man mentioned in the good book is a Scot, King James VI, who authorised its translation.
Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.
He could take to drink, but the Scots make the best in the world.
He could take a rifle and end it all but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick of Pitfours, Scotland.
If he escapes death, he might then find himself on an operating table injected with penicillin, which was discovered by Alexander Fleming of Darvel, Scotland, and given an anaesthetic, which was discovered by Sir James Young Simpson of Bathgate, Scotland.
Out of the anaesthetic, he would find no comfort in learning he was as safe as the Bank of England founded by William Paterson of Dumfries, Scotland.
Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid (good) Scottish blood which would entitle him to ask “Wha’s Like Us”.
Even Santa’s a Scotsman!
Merry Christmas WUWT!
There’s lies, damn lies, and Griff lies.
Here is the lukewarmer edition of the settled science. Compare the 2nd column (ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to the 4th (predicted rise in average temperature). Notice how 1120 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere indicates only 2C warming. At that level humanity benefits. We get 1) far higher crop yields, 2) less severe winters kill fewer people, 3) the poles largely keep their ice. I like the settled science. [ PS: this is just my own back of envelope calculation ]. No emergency measures need be taken against CO2 because there will be no tipping points due to water or methane. So far we’ve only added an extra 120ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. No need to panic as you seem to want us to.
Griff – You forgot the beeeep at the end of your mechanical message. Mimes we don’t need. GK
More importantly, it is obvious that the “scientists” are equivocators.
Nonsense. If CO2 is a problem simply go nuclear. The French are pretty close to it. Problem is that the same guys who are anti-CO2 are also anti-nuclear and are pushing for the idiotic solar and wind that can never fully replace fossil fuels. The idea of nuclear has been banished from the press and from briefings for politicians. And don’t forget Hansen who told us that if we keep burning fossil fuels it will get so hot that the oceans will boil away and whose idea is still forcing them to curtail fossil fuels.
Lets call it Griff’s corner – what a following of lil’ griffie’s shadows you have. I’m amazed at how stating the obvious hits such a nerve here, WUWT?
If I were a uncared and lonesome man, I would write some half-baked issue on WUWT, being sure to get some attention from his many friends here…
Otherwise, I’m not sure if Griff isn’t a runnnig gag invented from Anthony to make his blog more interesting…
Marika Ziesack, PhD Student
There sure are a lot of fancy titles.
A chemistry prof. explained it to me once. All you need to start an “institute” is an office door to hang a sign on, then go to the local office supply store and have some stationary and business cards printed up. As soon as anyone knows, you are in business, a real live Institution.
The Universities love it, all so sciency and formal and professional.
And prestigious, we must not forget the prestige.
This one is the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired ….
Endowed by a big time Clinton contributor, accused girlfriend abuser (settled for 1.5 million), accused of negligent homocide (“they didn’t indict me … they do not have enough on me. They don’t have enough emails on me,”), but got off although four of his executives went to jail for using approved materials in surgeries (three dead).
Mr Wyss has endowed an Institute that is real, but he (of Soros ilk) is a dirt-bag.
So let me understand. When Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine conducts a survey, it’s fine that some of the respondents are medical doctors (who know nothing about climatology). As well as computer science majors (who know nothing about climatology). It’s fine that thousands of the respondents only have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or physics. But it’s not ok for PhD students in the hard sciences to sign this petition – when clearly they already have more education than the vast majority of the signatories of the OISM petition.
And a applicant for the President of the USA was asked on television
“what do you think of Aleppo ” Reply; who’s Aleppo ? Another educated idiot.
@george Tetley
“And a applicant”
And AN applicant.
Tea bag
Are you kidding?
Computer science people are well aware that models of immensely complex (possibly chaotic), dynamic, non-linear systems employing indeterminate coefficients and incorporating dubious assumptions ain’t worth “a bucket of warm spit.”
They aren’t “science” and they aren’t “evidence.”
John Garrett, right, that’s why Wall Street employs thousands of computer science PhDs to predict future prices on stocks, bonds and commodities – even though those equations have an equal number if not more assumptions.
Indeed Chris.
And look where all those whiz-kid economists with their maths PhDs landed us in 2008…
Not the best of similes.
I’m guessing that Chris either doesn’t know the difference between some, and most.
Secondly, one is a survey, the second is a letter that is attempting to use the “prestige” of the signers to influence the president-elect.
If the signers don’t have an “prestige” to begin with, it’s a big so what.
Actually, Mark, I do. The OISM list also includes many thousands of folks with a bachelor of science. I’ve checked out that curriculum – zero courses on atmospheric sciences across the major disciplines of Chemical, Civil, Electrical and Mechanical. I’m sure you’re reply is “but they are really smart people who understand complex equations!” Right, so let’s start having civil engineers and mechanical engineers do all our analysis of new drug trials instead of someone with a PhD in Biochemistry. You know, because this science stuff is all the same.
Chris, Those PhD candidates signed because they see their careers going up, well in smoke. Never underestimate the power of self-interest.
Steven, you can use that same logic across any degree and any discipline. So basically every doctor, programmer, civil engineer, etc cannot be trusted because they will act so much out of self interest that they will sacrifice their integrity.
Who said it “it’s not OK for PhD students… to sign this petition”? It’s not just OK, it’s fracking hilarious.
“But it’s not ok for PhD students in the hard sciences to sign this petition – when clearly they already have more education than the vast majority of the signatories of the OISM petition.”
Why, those PhD’s should be free to sign whatever they like.
I want to see the list of PhD’s who don’t sign off on CAGW. You think we could find 333 of those somewhere?
Here’s a list of 30,000 folks, including 9,000 PhDs, mostly scientists and engineers that have signed a petition that actually can be read on the home page:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Dan, that’s exactly the survey I spoke about. Medical doctors? Give me a break. Oh, and I have a bachelors and masters degree in electrical engineering. My physics courseload had zero (0) content on atmospheric sciences.
And yet, here you are, Chris, commenting on climate science. No, wait… you’re speaking about the opinions held by others, regarding climate science. They aren’t qualified to speak of such things, but you are?
——————–
Merry Christmas
Alan, the difference is I don’t claim to be an expert on AGW, I don’t claim that my opinion should be relied upon to make policy decisions. This is a blog, not a scientific journal or conference. The OISM petition is held up as evidence that AGW is not cause for concern, as counter evidence to the hundreds of published papers on AGW. See the difference?
Chris,
That petition is held up as evidence that the “scientific consensus” is not consensus.
I haven’t seen that petition held up as evidence that AGW is not cause for concern; it’s a statement of 31.000 like minded people.
Nobody on that signed that petition was trying to alleviate your concern. Be concerned about whatever you want, you’re allowed.
(What part of that petition statement do you disagree with?)
Dan M, by your logic there is no scientific consensus on evolution. I can certainly find 31,000 folks with technical degrees who don’t believe in it. You seem to think that consensus is 100% agreement of everyone, even those with zero – and I mean zero – relevant backgrounds to the topic. We should look to medical doctors to decide of AGW is real? That’s just ridiculous. Consensus on scientific matters is not a vote whereby 100% support for an issue must be achieved.
(What part of that petition statement do you disagree with?)
The IPCC also has number of people are not quite top notch scientists either, so I hope Chris doesn’t go around quoting them.
Whenever I see the words “carbon pollution”, I know the topic is not science and one can ignore the rest, as it will be pure BS.
‘Climate change” does it for me…
And Pavlov’s dog was trained to salivate.
Here is the ‘decoded’ version of the letter:
“We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action to keep the “Gravy Train” full and rolling in our direction.”
…
Oh, you thought there was more? No, that’s it.
The CAGW Gravy Train is being directed into a siding, off the main track. It’s slowing down, waiting for the switch to be aligned, right now, before heading in and stopping when it clears the mainline.
Conductor Trump will give the signal when it is time to stop.
The list of students appears to be many rent seekers who realize that there career choices were made based on the assumption that the “Climate Change” money spigot would remain wide open forever. Now that they realize that the flow of taxpayer funding will be greatly diminished, they are scrambling to the defense of the Obama status quo.
It’s humorous that one of their arguments is that Trump will be an outlier in not continuing to bulldoze money into the pit of climate change. Trump ran for president as an outlier. We elected him because he was an outlier. Why do the signatories of this letter believe that the president elect will suddenly change his mind and want to be part of a consensus? These signatories seem to be out of touch with reality.
Thanks for highlighting some of the members of this list. That this bunch consider MPH/communications and urban studies grads “scientists” to be listened to betrays their true motive, which is to assert unaccountable control over governments and individuals. Really just leftism repackaged as a scientific argument
This is what “climate resilience” looks like:
http://www.dannypol.nl/upload/1364998386-achter-de-dijken.jpg
It is nothing new, either. How often do you read about the North Sea or the Atlantic flooding cities in Europe these days? It’s not for want of storms; it is just that the coasts have been properly fortified. I’ve always found it puzzling that cities like New York or Miami have been left unprotected.
you might have read this…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25253080
Yes, the Thames Barrier and post 1953 measures stopped cities and housing being flooded, but it did tremendous damage along UK’s east coast
Griff ?????
No indication in your reference that damage was caused by, or made worse by the coastal defenses.
And:
On the contrary, it sounds like a big win for all in the danger areas.
It is likely then that Griff was part of the enviro-movement that prevented the US Army Corps of Engineers from repairing the levees in the years leading up to Katrina,….
Proactively saving lives does tremendous damage along UK’s east coast. I suppose you could look at it like that. It’s why you have no influence here.
Griff, have a look at wiki’s list of historical North Sea storm tides and their casualties. Then tell me again with a straight face that the net effect of coastal fortifications is adequately described as “enormous damage.”
That’s the common theme with you believers — old or young, educated or not, you all lack common sense.
I keep reading that in the case of Florida, porous limestone bedrock will allow the ocean to just leak under any sea wall that they might build. That’s assuming I’m being told the truth.
However, I also know that we are being lied to when we’re told sea level is going to rise by a meter or more by 2100 which is the usual claim.
When it comes to “Climate Change” we are being lied to on nearly all aspects of the issue.
So maybe you’re correct to be puzzled (-:
Steve, just building a wall is rarely the best option. Modern sea dikes have a shallow profile and additional protection on the seaward side to prevent erosion of the seabed. The Dutch have dike construction down to an art; I’m sure they could come up with a viable solution for Florida. It could be paid for with the money now being squandered on CAGW “science” and “democratized clean energy”.
Most of the situations in Florida are on barrier islands. They are sand and these sands move, erode, replenish.
Where do you get that meter rise? The rise will be 10 inches as Chao, Yu, and Li determined. See their article in April 11th Science in 2008.
https://thinkprogress.org/scientist-miami-as-we-know-it-today-is-doomed-its-not-a-question-of-if-it-s-a-question-of-when-3b3212be388d#.met3khepq
“Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like,” says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily — it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here,” says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.”
take the word of a Dutchman on it!
See also:
http://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/what_we_do/climate/Florida%20Report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20SLR.pdf
Griff: Arcadis doesn’t “specialize in rising seas” but is a general purpose engineering firm, and Daoust is Canadian, not Dutch. He is billed as Arcadis’ south Florida leader in climate adaptation and resilience.
It may be true that the geology of the Florida coast poses special challenges, but generally speaking, the impression prevails that coastal protection in the U.S. has received comparatively little investment and attention. In European countries, these things are in the purview of the national governments, and the results speak for themselves.
What climate change?
Forgive me for sounding slightly contrarian. I agree with most of the rebuttal to the S.A. open letter, however, there’s one component of it that I find vexing, and I apologize if I’m being thick: why can’t CO2 be a pollutant? Just because it’s a natural component of the atmosphere, if humans put a lot of it there, doesn’t it become a pollutant. Oil, for example, is a natural component of the earth’s crust, and it often leaks, on its own. That’s not considered a pollutant unless people pump it up and spill it all over sea birds and the like.
It seems to me the slight increase in CO2 levels attributable to humans is probably beneficial for the most part. And doesn’t yet exceed the highest known natural levels over the last 200 million years. But at what point would we consider the human-contributed part a pollutant? 1% of the atmosphere? 10%? When it exceeds the highest ever naturally occurring? When it starts causing obvious and significant problems? Never?
It doesn’t seem to me that just because it’s a naturally-occurring compound doesn’t mean it’s not also a pollutant. Could someone explain to me where I’m incorrect in this conclusion? Thanks!
@psion — Good question. So you have to ask: 1) Is it chemically identical to naturally produced CO2; if so, 2) What level of excessive emission is demonstrably harmful to the environment; 3) How is excess CO2 emission any different from excess emission of water vapor (a much more powerful greenhouse gas).
The answers, to the best of current knowledge: 1) Yes. 2) After many years of data taken, there is still no clear answer. We know the dangers of excessively low CO2 (plant life goes dormant, temperatures drop, and lots of people die). The historical record shows what low values might represent a threat, but there is little help in the historical record of what represents excessively high levels, since the paleo data for high levels generally correspond to thriving plant and animal life. 3) The main difference between CO2 emission and water vapor is how long it stays in the atmosphere, but this also is a fairly controversial subject since it is tied to questions of feedback, the response of the biosphere to changes, etc.
Summary: There is very little empirical data to justify CO2 as a pollutant. All we know is that we are well within the range that can be accommodated in a healthy biosphere.
psion: an interesting question. This is a case where AGW proponents have pulled the Orwellian trick of re-defining the language. In common use, a “pollutant” is a substance which when introduced into another substance makes it unsuitable for its normal purpose (or significantly less suitable). Pollutants need not be toxic although many are. CO2 does not become a pollutant in normal air until concentrations well above 1% (10,000 PPM), when it begins to impact human respiration [some references claim higher values].
Within the meaning of the original Clean Air and Clean Water acts, “pollution” was something which negatively impacted plant, animal or human health. The US Supreme Court (very unwisely IMHO), basically gave the EPA unlimited authority to classify anything as a “pollutant” if they “reasonably believed” it could harm human health. What they should have ruled was the EPA attempt to so classify CO2 was regulatory overreach, and required new authorizing legislation.
Due to constant repetition in the press and the aforementioned court decision, we are stuck with the phrase “carbon pollution”, but it’s really just a marketing slogan.
Ok I’ll play. CO2 should be reassessed for pollutant status when it exceeds the maximum levels observed in the geological record during which life was abundant and fecund and nothing catastrophic happened to the climate which may be attributable to that level of CO2. That level is conservatively 5,000 ppm which is an impossible level for humans to achieve through fossil fuel burning. Therefore it is forever impossible that CO2 emitted as a consequence of human activity may ever be correctly described a a pollutant simply because of the level compared with the geological record.
On the other hand if evidence should come to light that current or projected levels of atmospheric human CO2 are indeed causing an overall negative impact on life on Earth and/or evidently destabilising the climate system then that should be sufficient cause for reassessing the pollutant status of CO2. The key word here is ‘evidence’ and by evidence I don’t mean unvalidated model output.
I will take a stab at this.
Pollutant is a political term as much as a scientific term, therefor any definition is bound to be a bit fuzzy. That said, your suggestion that when it starts causing problems, is as good as any.
When does it start causing problems? Nuclear submarines typically operate with ~4000 ppm, about 10x atmospheric, and can go much higher, to 20x or even 30x if they must. Can we get that high? In a word, no. there is not enough fossil fuels on the planet to get close.
If you really want to increase the carbon dioxide component of the atmosphere, you are really talking about digging up all the limestone, marble, and all other carbonaceous rock you can find and cooking them.
This, by the way, is an industrial policy I have long advocated. In particular, I have suggested mining out the White Cliffs of Dover, following the marl deposits through northern France, and mining out the limestone, marble, and dolomite of Italy. For some reason, my suggestions have received a somewhat cool response, particularly from people who live in England, France, and Italy. I do not know why.
Further to TonyL’s points:
h/t Dan Pangburn
Tony – wonderful! The closing of your comment gave me the best laugh I’ve had all day, but your WHOLE comment – ten thumbs up. Excellent stuff. 🙂
Ron – excellent graph! Thank you for posting this. I’ve save it to file.
We Brits attempted that with the Channel Tunnel (Euro thing). After many screw ups and more money we got through to Calais. We found a lot of Afro and other illegal people demanding to use it to grab favourable benefits in UK. As such we now own the port of Calais and some surrounding walls and fences. Please send more money as we need to own the rest of Europe! It was a thing we were often quite good at…land/resource grab.
@psion
By your argument, oxygen may then be considered to be a pollutant to what extent; since it makes up two thirds of the CO2. And since it the by-product of plant photosynthesis, and therefor put in the atmosphere by plant life….
“It doesn’t seem to me that just because it’s a naturally-occurring compound doesn’t mean it’s not also a pollutant.”
And, of course, the well known oxygen-dihydrogen as a pollutant.
@ur momisugly psion (@ur momisuglypsion) – December 12, 2016 at 7:43 am
Sand is a naturally occurring compound of which there is boo-koo tons of it and is enjoyed by millions of beach goes and concrete pourers ….. but it is a dastardly pollutant iffen when someone puts a couple cup-fulls of that sand in your corn meal, your cake flour or your vehicle’s engine oil.
And CO2 is highly dangerous to your health ….. iffen your hospital nurse attaches your oxygen supply line to a cylinder of CO2 instead of a cylinder of O2.
Thanks for the responses!
thomasbrown32000: Agreed on all points, although I believe there is a slight difference in the C13/C12 carbon isotope ratios of human-generated CO2. Not that this should have ANY effect that differentiates it from natural sources.
cephus0: Agreed, although 5000ppm feels high. But I haven’t the math or degrees to refute you.
TonyL: I take issue with the submarine example because that’s discussing young, healthy humans in an artificial environment and doesn’t take into account the effects on other species. 12,000ppm might be fine if you’re in good health, but I’d like to see the effects on plants, fish, insects, etc. And then I suppose it’s also possible the altered density of CO2 might mess with corrosion somehow or the way concrete sets (yeah, I’m guessing now). I just don’t think I’d want to see it go that high in the general atmosphere until I see replicated research.
Michael Burns and Samuel C Cogar: Perhaps I should clarify the point you quoted to read instead, “It doesn’t seem to me that just because it’s a naturally-occurring compound, doesn’t mean the human-generated component is not also a pollutant.” In fact, it could be argued that for the initial, primordial atmosphere of the earth, the production of oxygen by early algea was a pollutant that significantly altered the atmosphere. Just because we now think of lots of oxygen as a good thing, doesn’t mean we should let algea off the hook! Talk about ruining the primordial world for your grandkids!
Alan Watt: Yep, this has become a politicized word, to go along with the politicized and agenda-driven science. But, as it stands right now, the ‘warmists’ fully believe that the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere is causing harm. Killing polar bears (it’s not), raising sea levels an immeasurable rate more than was natural before it, making Katrina happen every year, causing the production of sequels to boring and bad documentaries about the climate, etc. It’s been the mainstay of environmentalists that all effects of global warming are bad to help drive home the constant drumbeat that “it’s worse than we thought.”
But in that light, conceding that warmists think human-contributed CO2 is causing all this, CO2 is a pollutant to them. And no one will sway them from this thinking until someone demonstrates that CO2 doesn’t cause the anticipated harm even if it is demonstrably good for the planet in many other ways. And until that happens, they’ll continue to argue that human-made CO2 is a pollutant, right or wrong. I’m not convinced it isn’t a pollutant yet, although I feel more confident in the belief that it’s not until it causes obvious harm.
Here is a list of obligate anaerobes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_anaerobe#Examples
They are bacteria that cannot grow on a normal atmospheric concentration of oxygen. O2 can be considered pollution for them. Gas gangrene caused by Clostridium perfringens is treated by placing the patient inside a hyperbaric oxygen rich chamber. Too much O2 will kill the bacteria (or at least it will prevent the bacteria from growing) but not the patient.
As far as I know, there are no examples of living beings that are killed by normal atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Some bacteria require higher than atmospheric CO2 concentrations to grow. (Neisseria gonorrhoeae and N. meningitidis for instance) but to my knowledge, there is no living organism that is killed by normal or relatively higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, (Now if you are talking about 100 % CO2 then yes, many. But that is too extreme. By these terms, you will also die if you are trapped in a room filled with 100% H2O. or 100% N2, or basically 100% of anything besides O2 )
I guess you will have to ask the ones who support the idea that CO2 is pollution why they think so.Try sending a letter to Scientific American and see how many of the scientists who signed the letter to Trump. can provide with examples that support their claim. My impresion is that they call CO2 pollution because it causes CAGW.
urederra: you will also die if you are trapped in a room filled with …. basically 100% of anything besides O2
Actually, 100% O2 at atmospheric pressure will likely to kill your as well. It’s called oxygen poisoning, and most people will die at prolonged exposure to a pure oxygen.
@ur momisugly psion (@ur momisuglypsion) – December 12, 2016 at 9:29 am
psion (@ur momisuglypsion), in the case of myself, ….. clarification of your comment was entirely unnecessary simply because I’m too damn old to be treated like a High School adolescent by the “fence-straddling” likes of you who fancies yourself as some sort of “all knowing” arbitrator of worldly discussions even though you have freely admitted that you “DON’T HAVE A CLUE” as to what is actually happening in the natural world around you.
Anyway, psion (@ur momisuglypsion), back to your initial statement @ur momisugly December 12, 2016 at 7:43 am
psion (@ur momisuglypsion), iffen you are a citizen of the US of A ….. then CO2 can be a pollutant iffen you want to claim it is a pollutant. Hells bells, you can claim that “blue skies” and ”sweaty sex” are both pollutants iffen you want too ….. because you have a Constitutional right of “free speech”, regardless of how stupid, asinine or silly the contents/context of your “free speech” is or was.
psion (@ur momisuglypsion), I have an important question to ask you, which is:
psion, exactly why did you decide to …. side or agree with all of the “junk science” rhetoric being touted by lefty liberal “greenie” wackos and/or the avid proponents of CAGW climate change ……….. rather than those persons who are highly educated in the actual factual science of the natural world?
Was it because of a family member(s), your close friend(s), your peer group or you work associates?
A pollutant is something harmful. CO2 is a benefit. It increases plant growth, giving better crop yields. It will also benefit plants in low rainfall regions because they will respire less to get the same amount of CO2 so will better conserve water. Expect: a larger area of earth occupied by plants and faster growing plants. From a lukewarmer point of view: 1100 ppm CO2 should raise average temperature by 2C. Anything above that may be a problem. It seems to me 1100 ppm CO2 is at least a century away; because oceans are a considerable CO2 sink, or buffer if you like.
It will be clear to all at what point CO2 ceases to be a benefit because polar ice will melt causing accelerated sea level rise. That is, basically, the only possible problem I can see ahead. We’ll know there’s a problem when there’s a problem. Trying to second guess what might go wrong puts lunatics in charge, or elevates them to influential positions. Because there will always be a lunatic somewhere with a more horrid catastrophe scenario, trumping the previous dystopia with more extreme projections. There is no end to the number of hypothetical, dystopian, worlds one can imagine, or project. Please stick with the science, with verified evidence.
Team Trump has asked the Department of Energy for the list of employees who have been active in propagating the climate change panic. We will see how much time the department will need to produce the list.
Scientific American should be applauded for producing a list of 800 pseudoscientists who are supposed to do Earth sciences but instead they work on this superstitious left-wing propaganda. These 800 people need to be fired.
I wonder, are you proposing 800 people get sacked for doing their job, just because of a change in the US political leadership?
I seem to recall a lot of outcry about people being sacked for contrary climate views in these pages…
They should be fired because they did not state the counter argument.
The only major country to produce significantly less CO2 (back to 1990s levels) is the USA and it did so because of fracking.
But if the “800” had said something nice about fracking they would be shunned in the academic “Community”
Its a cult.
wut jobs? aha ha ha ha
It’s impossible to sack government employees. Getting the names of attendees at certain conferences, etc. means the they can be interrogated about their doings there–which is policy-relevant.
He’s pretty clearly suggesting they be sacked for not doing their jobs.
Eight years later, the same principle holds true.
@ur momisugly Griff – December 12, 2016 at 8:19 am
Griff, the aforenoted 800 “troughfeeding” Academics, ….. and/or another 10,000 to 30,000 similar “troughfeeding” Academics …… don’t hafta be sacked or fired by either Trump or his designee.
The only action that Trump or his designee has to perform is to “Cancel all Federal Grants” and those “troughfeeding” Academics will hafta quit or resign and look for another source of income.
And another good thing about it, ……. they can’t collect/draw Unemployment iffen they quit or resign.
Griff
“I wonder, are you proposing 800 people get sacked for doing their job, just because of a change in the US political leadership?”
Yep and not replaced along with several million more!
“I seem to recall a lot of outcry about people being sacked for contrary climate views in these pages…”
Yes Grifter, what goes around, comes around.
Just put it all down to Karma.
These people (note that I didn’t say scientists) shouldn’t be sacked for believing in global warming. It is clearly a religion, and the US constitution protects people’s rights to practice their own religions:
1. It is a systematized set of beliefs (eg that the 5% of CO2 emitted by humans will cause uncontrollable global warming, but the 95% that is naturally emitted doesn’t)
2. Those beliefs are either not based in fact, or at least not verifiable (eg none of the computer models used by the IPCC have ever produced verifiable predictions)
3. There is a hierarchy of practitioners (think of Al Gore as the equivalent of the Pope)
4. There is a system to punish people that wander from the one true path (eg excommunication of heretics)
They should be sacked for practicing religion instead of doing science, which is what they were paid for.
People would not get sacked for doing their job. They might, perhaps, get sacked if they can’t adjust to the new job conditions. Scientists and engineers are not working for nothing. They get paid. And they get paid to do particular jobs. When the job they are working on goes away, for whatever reason, they are expected to take on the new job offered to them. They do not get to choose what they will work on, because they do not control the money. The people paying the money get to choose what the job is.
Therefore, a list of people who are currently working on CAGW projects will probably be offered a chance to work on a different project. It is completely up to them whether they take the new job offer.
Lubos Mot – at 7:54 am
Team Trump has asked the Department of Energy for the list … Scientific American should be applauded for producing a list …
Oooh that was good (-:
“What the frack is “democratized” energy?”
Sophistry, mostly. It is another example of constant invention/redefinition of terms so that onlookers/targets have no idea what the actual meaning or scope is. And of course, the term can be re-redefined or appended at any time by the originators so as to keep onlookers/targets confused as to what’s really being discussed.
Merriam Webster has this to say:
Let’s hope they mean the second, not the first; after all, we all know the outcome of recent administrations’ efforts to “democratize” the Middle East.
I think sophistry is the polite term. I suspect the real definition is tied to ‘public’ ownership of the energy source. Sounds a lot like public ownership of the means of production, and that worked really well in the Soviet Union.
Democratized anything, means that the government controls it.
re “3. Enhance America’s climate preparedness and resilience. In the past 5 years alone, storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires caused over $250 billion in damages10.”
perhaps because mankind keeps building stuff in areas that are prone to storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires.
800 people who’s lively-hood depend on massive public grant money demand more massive public grant money.
Eureka
If you take away all the signers who are government-funded, either directly or indirectly, how many are left? I think the taxpayer funded “scientists” should recuse themselves on the basis of conflict of interest.
By your logic, everyone who has a job has a conflict of interest.
“By your logic, everyone who has a job has a conflict of interest.”
Oh dear Chris, what an idiotic thing to say.
You really don’t get it, do you?
How old are you, as a matter of interest.
It seems we have the most highly educated dopes on the planet. 🙂
To poison. I believe this question was answered once before. We exhale about 20,000 parts per million. I think the navy permits 5000 as a safe level in submarines. Green houses use 2000 parts to enhance plant growth. We are a long way from any of them.
Sorry I meant psion. Spell checking is bad. Changed my text but I did’ notice. Sorry