Describe the process of carbon 14 dating dating maddonna
How about the US government’s yearly subsidies of .5 billion to the Global Change Research Program, a giant pro warming bureaucracy?To dispel any doubt as to what their position is here is a quote from the intro to their National Climate Assessment (NCA) report: “Global climate is changing.In fact, it is my opinion that the real climate change deniers or “denialists” or whatever the hell you want to call them are those who refuse to look at the palaeoclimatological record of natural variability, and choose instead to believe that a slight increase in an atmospheric trace gas portends our doom. Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition.The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time.They acknowledged that there could be consequences to the unrestrained addition of CO2 to the global atmosphere, but at the same time were confronted with the enormous complexities of integrating multiple factors that could drastically alter the outcome of their models.Your entire response to my comments is a statement of opinions. I do completely agree that money has the potential to corrupt.So if Exxon’s paltry million or so has corrupted climate change science how about the billion assets raised by Generation Investment Management, which stands to profit handsomely from global warming remediation schemes such as Cap and Trade?
You say “further accumulation of evidence that the fossil fuel industry has long been aware of and funding denial etc.” I would be interested if you could supply details – specifically the money trail and where it leads, which scientists received payoffs and most importantly some examples of fraudulent science funded by this money.The above list barely scratches the surface of the vast complex of vested interests that stand to gain through implementation of carbon remediation measures. Not any more than has been normal throughout the centuries. We have not seen anything like some of the well-documented droughts that have occurred around this planet for thousands of years, long before we humans were driving SUVs.Several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age: 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow 1275 to 1300 based on radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion 1650 for the first climatic minimum. To this date half of all US states, that is 25 of the 50, have all-time high temperature records which were set in the 1930s and have not been exceeded since.You say that this is obvious to anyone who understands the fundamentals of climate change. The potential of CO2 to influence the climate has been recognized long before Exxon funded some research in the 1980s, going all the way back to Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century.
I notice that you couldn’t help throwing in the word “deny,” as if I am denying some facts and information which you apparently presume I haven’t considered.
Having now gone through the supposed scandalous documents purporting to prove Exxon’s disreputable behavior I find virtually nothing of substance.