 |
Re: Global Warming-Do It With Steam Power!
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 06-14-2008 - 11:19
Bob,
Obviously you didn't draw the graph. If you had, you wouldn't have spouted off about your alleged math education. When CO2 amounts to only 0.00038 of total atmospheric makeup, one can run all the multvariant time series regression models he wants, it still adds up to Statistically Insignificant. Remember that phrase from your skool daze? Apparently not.
Here's another mind blower for you - from a purely technical standpoint, there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas", since the greenhouse effect requires the qualities of reflection and refraction, and an element must be in a state of liquid or solid to provide such qualities. Gases cannot relfect nor refract. Perhaps that's why water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse element (by consensus 95% to 97% of the greenhouse effect), since it is the most readily convertable to droplets and ice crystals within the normal constraints of atmospheric temperature variance. CO2 may have some influence on the formation of water droplets and water ice crystals, but by itself it rarely attains such states within the atmoshpere's "greenhouse belt".
Of course the media and beauracrats have taken the phrase "greenhouse gas" and have run with it to the point of it engraining itself within the linguistic lexicon. Oh well.
It is amazing that you denigrate anyone who disputes Climate Fraud. Only watch Fox, huh? Paid off by the oil companies, huh? All 31,000 of those scientists who signed the petition disputing global warming are all on the payroll of Fox and Big Oil, huh? It is ironic you choose such childish tactics, since your side is dependent on shaky climate models built on cherry-picked data (none of which come close to mirroring actual global temperature readings of the past decade), while those of us on the correct side actually look at the raw data and use the basic principles of physics and economics to come to our conclusions.
You are simply a Climate Fraud Denier.
Obviously you didn't draw the graph. If you had, you wouldn't have spouted off about your alleged math education. When CO2 amounts to only 0.00038 of total atmospheric makeup, one can run all the multvariant time series regression models he wants, it still adds up to Statistically Insignificant. Remember that phrase from your skool daze? Apparently not.
Here's another mind blower for you - from a purely technical standpoint, there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas", since the greenhouse effect requires the qualities of reflection and refraction, and an element must be in a state of liquid or solid to provide such qualities. Gases cannot relfect nor refract. Perhaps that's why water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse element (by consensus 95% to 97% of the greenhouse effect), since it is the most readily convertable to droplets and ice crystals within the normal constraints of atmospheric temperature variance. CO2 may have some influence on the formation of water droplets and water ice crystals, but by itself it rarely attains such states within the atmoshpere's "greenhouse belt".
Of course the media and beauracrats have taken the phrase "greenhouse gas" and have run with it to the point of it engraining itself within the linguistic lexicon. Oh well.
It is amazing that you denigrate anyone who disputes Climate Fraud. Only watch Fox, huh? Paid off by the oil companies, huh? All 31,000 of those scientists who signed the petition disputing global warming are all on the payroll of Fox and Big Oil, huh? It is ironic you choose such childish tactics, since your side is dependent on shaky climate models built on cherry-picked data (none of which come close to mirroring actual global temperature readings of the past decade), while those of us on the correct side actually look at the raw data and use the basic principles of physics and economics to come to our conclusions.
You are simply a Climate Fraud Denier.
