Again you confuse carbon cycling on the surface with deeply stored out of cycle carbon.
Do you not understand?
But what the dim wit doesn't understand is that termites are only recycling surface carbon into methane which then rapidly decomposes into CO2 instead of the surface carbon directly decomposing into CO2.
The thing he misses is that we are digging up millions of years of STORED carbon, that is NOT in the planetary cycle. Of course he probably doesn't believe the Earth is that old.
The opinion doesn't follow from the stated fact. The opinion is worthless in the context.
Logic is your friend unless you are incapable or unwilling to use it.
faux news. In my experience a conservative you have just met will tell you nearly verbatim
the exact same theories for their positions. One of these days I plan to interrupt them before
they start and tell them I can read minds and then explain to them what they think before they
have a chance to tell me. It should be great fun.
Other hand intelligent progressive people usually have much more nuanced and varying opinions
about political issues. A clear sign of thinking instead of being programmed.
But we all know that conservative blue collar meatheads are just tools of the one percent.
Use Google, go read some economic papers. They are nearly unanimous in opinion that the potential damage was severe and we did dodge the bullet.
Most serious non partisan economists think this way also. What the RWNJ doesn't realize is how deeply the economy could have unwound without the prop up.
doesn't mean a naughtzee lier like he thinks.
Yeah right, the number of new applications for unemployment has nothing to do with the number of people losing their jobs ....
What color is the sky in your world.
The number being discussed is the number of people essentially losing their jobs in the last four weeks. It has nothing to do with labor participation.
Much fewer are losing their jobs, a definite sign of an improving economy and accomplished without any RWNJ nonsense.
models cannot predict the future of every factor. Look back at the temperature variations of the estimate prior to the industrial age. The estimates jump up and down with unknown causes. What one can do if he has a smidgen of mathematics training is model the random pre industrial swings and then see how likely the industrial era warming trend would be. Not very likely given the character of the past.
Dummies version for you. Yes the random fluctuations do rise and fall but they rarely carry on as long as the industrial warming trend. Hence the difference. They do carry on as long as the 'pause' .
He can't say that for certain because the pause may well be due to an unknown factor.
None of the models you erroneously claim are wrong were more than 5 deg in error. Why do you lie constantly.
Hawfaeces says the models fail if they predicted 1.034 deg rise and the result was 1.033 deg rise.
Anything to keep up the doubt machine.