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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (49757)	4/1/2014 3:23:55 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

More stupid tripe... there's no scientific basis for that saturation theory. It's just another piece of nonsense the deniers pull out of their patties. LOL.....do you dream of becoming the Pope of Church of Global Warming, or perhaps Bishop of Global Warming Inquisition? Turning a blind eye to empirical science based on math, chemistry and physics tells me all I need to know about you.

To: Land Shark who wrote (49757)	4/2/2014 11:06:31 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86355

If you are too stupid to see why their is a saturation effect, it is no wonder to babble on about whatever nonsense you believe. If you put a 50% film on an auto glass you reduce the light by 50% If you add a second layer you get 75% total. As you ass more layers you keep cutting the effect of adding a layer. That above is a simple example of the basis of the logarithmic absorption curve. But even more retarded is the fact you ignore all the tens of thousands of parts of water vapor in the air that have already basicallly sucked up all the energy of the wavelengths of CO2 and millions more. I am a design electrical, electronic engineer and visualizing the processes of invisible forces is what it's all about. You are totally ignorant of the laws of physics and clearly cannot visualize you are your asshole even using both hands. bulk.ath.cx is also toms.homeip.net