Tags:
this "study" is all over the place now, tons of outlets are picking it up and running with it. just in case anybody has not seen EID's rebuttal, here it is.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-...
EID also note the change in heat retention factor they're using for methane that just appeared in the last couple of years, which i still have not seen a rational explanation for, beyond "because the ipcc says so"
i suspect it's got something to do with what the "models" are saying, if it does not fit, just change it.
http://www.cleanskies.org/ghgemissions/report/staple_swisher.pdf
destroys the howarth study utterly, cornell should be ashamed but alas i know they are unrepentant.
what we need more of is SCIENCE not a bunch of hacks sitting around constructing a tower of GARBAGE around a pre-determined conclusion.
409 members
6 members
253 members
287 members
307 members
© 2026 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
GoHaynesvilleShale.com is where mineral owners, landowners and oil & gas professionals discuss the Haynesville Shale, Austin Chalk, Terryville Complex, Tuscaloosa Shale, Lower Smackover Brown Dense and lithium plays. Ask questions, share what you know, and keep up with activity in your parish or county. [ Read More ]