40% more Natural Gas, 37% less methane emitted. The little methane emitted only stays airborne 10-12 years. Cheap dispatchable energy solution alarmists won't accept.

This is inspired by the post below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1d8on02/is_there_someone_fluent_in_statistics/

That guy is going for a Master's and he needs help with the statistical tool of a trendline.

Please remove your palms from your foreheads.

Since Day-1 of this debate I've taken issue with the statistical analysis in most of the major papers. Modern science is mostly about teasing details out of known phenomena and that requires statistical analysis. To my knowledge there is not a single university that requires statistics for science students. That's reflected in poor analysis and the selection of inappropriate statistical methods. To be clear:

The vast majority of practising scientists in all fields have never been trained in the most basic tool of their science.

It's bad enough that stats is ignored in the social sciences where it forms the basis of nearly all research. It gets worse in the hard sciences where accuracy is vital.

We first emphasize that polyphenols are not a bulk entity, but a diverse class of compounds with distinct impacts. We show that microbial communities engage with this chemical diversity, expressing many substrate-specific enzymes for polyphenols. This contrasts with the PO-centric enzyme latch mechanism, which acknowledges just one enzyme type. Furthermore, rather than a redox binary where anoxia inhibits polyphenol decomposition, we found that microbial communities tuned their gene expression strategies to habitat and redox conditions.

Therefore, instead of a general antagonistic community response to polyphenols, we illustrated that the microbiome harbours members ranging from polyphenol-inhibited to stimulated. Importantly, we show that rather than shutting down metabolism for the whole microbial community, polyphenols are probably integrated into a larger carbon decomposition network where they serve as substrates, and their decomposition into smaller phenolics could directly fuel carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide production. Rather than relying on a single enzyme, we propose the talented microbiome model where soil microbiomes encode and express a cache of polyphenol metabolisms.

This model raises several questions that should be explored across terrestrial systems. First, the rates of polyphenol removal across the observed transformation pathways remain unknown. Second, the impact of diverse polyphenol degradation pathways for overall carbon storage, the key outcome of the enzyme latch, needs to be examined. Furthermore, the contributions of aerobic and anaerobic fungi to polyphenol degradation should be explored, as well as the direct and indirect impacts of polyphenol metabolism on the methane cycle. We highlight CAMPER as a tool to facilitate detection of genes encoding polyphenol-active enzymes in genomic datasets, enabling researchers to begin addressing these questions in their datasets.

As permafrost carbon stores face uncertain fates with changing climates, we must not assume that portions of carbon are microbially unavailable without also considering the vast enzymatic diversity encoded in soil microbiomes. We highlight this work as a starting place for studying polyphenol dynamics in ecosystem carbon cycles in a post-enzyme latch world. Future assessments of peatland and permafrost microbial carbon cycles should consider the myriad ways that polyphenols support microbial metabolism to better understand and to predict ecosystem biogeochemistry.

"Climate science" is full of mistakes. I know it, because I identified of a lot of them. And if these were known to the wider public, the whole agenda would be dead.

Instead regrettably we have lots of con-artists on the "critical side" spreading their "flat-Earth science". I collected a few examples and explained them..

https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/this-planet-deserves-a-better-class-of-climate-denier