Quick reminder that you're never off the record — everything you say can be quoted.
sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/u…
sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/u…
Probably not phrased well, but I stand by it.
In case you're wondering what I was referring to, the last sentence in the abstract is:
"Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts."
co2coalition.org/wp-content/upl…
In case you're wondering what I was referring to, the last sentence in the abstract is:
"Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts."
co2coalition.org/wp-content/upl…
As everyone should know, "facts" should be inputs to policy, but values also play a key role. So the statement "not justified by facts" in this case is pure nonsense. You can agree with them on the facts but disagree on what the right policy should be.
The paper has a bunch of other problems. As the 'ol chestnut goes, "this paper is both novel and good. unfortunately, the good parts are not novel and the novel parts are not good." But I think you already know that b/c one of the authors is Happer.
