Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (18811)	12/22/2007 1:52:20 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Poor old duffus. You can't get much of anything correct can you? "THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN THE RATE* OF INCREASE OR DECREASE SEEN IN THE ANNUAL CYCLE AND THE RATE OF INCREASE OR DECREASE OF THE LONGER TERM TREND."* Indeed, there is not as I stated above, but you failed to grasp on the reading comprehension part. There is indeed a 2'nd order effect between the mean CO2 level and the amplitude and hence rate of change in the annual cycle. However, this is way smaller of an effect than the nonsense Mq was claiming. And yes, your junkscience.com did not disappoint. It is well named. Even you should be able to find the junk in that "science". I particularly liked all the time spent belaboring the "greenhouse" metaphor concentrating on the difference between conduction and radiation, while avoiding pointing out that the point of a greenhouse is to maintain a temp difference across a boundary and that both conduction and radiation are two methods of heat transfer. I suspect that long winded diatribe was meant to confuse the feeble minded. It seemed to have worked in your case. Various others of the old time religion were there as well: Water is the main GHG, (therefore CO2 is not an issue??) LOL! CO2's absorption spectrum is already saturated, therefore more CO2 is not an issue. LOL again. Etc.