2010/1/27 Michael A. Lewis <[email protected]>
>
> >> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
> >> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
> >> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
> >> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
> >> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
> >> ignorance.
>
> The nastiness of this response suggests a lack of trust in the science.
Rather than cry about how wicked it is to point out that you do not seem to
grasp the physics involved, you could easily have chosen that you do
understand it. Your choice is answer enough.
> Furthermore, such a correlation is meaningless as there is no
> established cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2
> levels and average surface temperature. The fact in isolation that CO2
> absorbs IR energy says nothing about "global warming," as other
> chaotic factors involved in climate variability far outweigh the
> effects of CO2.
>
And where do you believe that causality breaks down, exactly?
--
/ Per
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
