lee wrote on Apr 12
th, 2019 at 10:50pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 12
th, 2019 at 9:31pm:
Do you ever get jealous of Frank's ability to write his own sentences and still be a climate skeptic?
No petal.
But I will have have to cut and paste. How else do you show statistics?

And you don't like that because you prefer a world without references other than your own "beliefs".
From Science Direct -
"Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere"
"The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787Now that is a science paper. if you want to crticise it go for it. But it broadly agrees with Skep sci and others that show 29Gt out of 750Gt of anthro CO2.
Now Australia's CO2 emissions are listed as about 549Mt CO2e.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/jan/09/australias-emission...Global emissions are 37.1Gt CO2e.
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/new-global-co2-emissions-numbers-are-they-re-no...Now that gives 549/37100 = 1.4% for Australia's share for the year.
So we have 4.3% of emissions are anthro and Australia has 1.4% of those anthro emissions which makes Australia's share 0.06% of global anthro emissions.
Of course Australia's net emissions are less than that because Australia is a net CO2 sink. Which means Australia has no net emissions.
Don’t waste your breathe Lee these people fall into category one below and don’t know any better.
1. People who listen to and believe the experts verbatim (the sheeple), they know no other way, their understanding of the natural sciences is limited and therefore they cannot form their own opinion about the evidence/data being presented to them.
2. People who first believed these experts or maybe not depending on their scientific background, for the ones without a scientific background that may have first believed and then have taken the time to investigate both sides of the argument having some nous and being able to come to their own conclusions, the (sheep dog).
3. People who get paid to deliberately fool the unsuspecting (the wolves).
BTW thanks for those links.................