The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22239)	7/17/2008 6:58:10 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) of 36917

Watson, in no place in this argument have I mentioned CO2. Not yet. That will all come later. First you need to understand basic physics, and what is meant by the "Greenhouse Effect". I know you desperately want the "Greenhouse Effect" to be some strawman theory that you can knock down. Panes of glass, tomato plants, putty and sticks. Sorry the big world of real scientists don't see it that way. The paper you claim to be the holy grail of deniers is a good paper. It is not "brilliant" (your quote) though. It is shot through with flaws as detailed to you now in many posts. It is a good exercise in being able to grasp what the "Greenhouse Effect" is. No more then that. When we are done getting the basic physics clear, we can talk CO2. Not till then. Do you understand what I have posted about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics yet? I worked for over 20 years with water vapour. Most often dealing with near vacuum conditions but also with humidity in air at atmospheric pressure. The chill from a clear sky at night is obvious to anyone who has gone on a camping trip. No need to complicate matters.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next