Appealing to some mythical authority. Ad homing Trolling Hansen again. No Salby and Shaviv are NOT being suddenly respected. Google it. Stu shows far more logic, science and truth than you do. It's not even close.
Maybe it is time for you to stop reposting the same thing hundreds of times as the moderators have demanded. As they have stated to you multiple times it is an abuse of the ET forum.
Video of starving polar bear highlights climate change effects http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/09/video-starving-polar-bear-reminder-need-stop-global-warming-7145081/
Dang... Fc, do you trade carbon credits? Might actually make a difference and turn a buck while at it.
I don't know what brought about the poor animal's death... this shit happens thousands of times a day everywhere with all sorts of fauna.... Still sad state of affairs to watch one die like that. For all we know, it could be gingivitis, or he just so happened to be a sad bear that gave up on life thanks to Trump.
If you weren't trying to be such a smartass all the time, you'd know very well it is perfectly reasonable to associate half life with residence time and not just with atom disintegration in radioactive substances. Your (wrong) remark about CO2 half life having 5-10 (it is nearer to 30 years) was in the context of residence time being how long it would remain active in the atmosphere. In that same context it was quite reasonable for me to point out it's the individual molecules of CO2 that have that half life /residence time of 5-10 years, while the effects last for hundreds. And by the way, we are talking about CO2 the hydrocarbon not C14 the radiocarbon. So in the context of this thread, your use of the term half life only really makes sense in relation to CO2 residence times. Probably your obsession arguing around Miskolczi and cosmic radiation(C14), muddled your thinking. The whole of your argument is not only based upon denying fact ( you still haven't even acknowledged the glaring mistake in your Bumble Bee and The Electric Fan metaphor) but apparently it is also to argue anything and everything out of context. To summarize, what you are trying to do in glorifying Salby et al is to say the extraordinary steep and profound rise in global temperature has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions (the only thing it can be as there is nothing else that to account for it ), but is due to ideas not supported by the laws of physics and science itself. It is the equivalent of asserting the steep rise in Dow Jones over the last 100 years is not because of human activity, but is due to any idea not supported by any fact.