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: maceng2 who wrote (22467)	7/24/2008 4:30:39 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

So you agree your analysis of Smith was bogus and his paper is stupidity. OK Your statements and analysis are false with regards to Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner's paper. You need to look up the definitions of words. You do not define "Atmospheric Heating Effect". The definition of effect is not that of a phenomenon. If you ever read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner's paper, you will be aware of this. The absence of the CO2 warming fingerprint shows the model postulated effect is non existent. There is nothing stated in Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner's paper that is at odd's with the statement The conclusion can only be there is such a phenomenon, and the Earth is approximately 33 deg. C warmer because of it. Maybe with the number 33C exactly, but who cares because the number is meaningless in any individuals personal experience at any place or time on the earth. Why do you need me to review the work of a dead guy? His bio suggests how smoked lots of CO2 and that is a good indicator of a thinking deprived mind. I think very highly of the work of Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner.