"dechucka" wrote in message
news:46c22d88$0$22590$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Whata Fool" wrote in message
> news:lb34c3tkhrggu61si66880m9gkkjojjtj5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:03:54 +1000, "dechucka"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You should read the paper again, it claims CO2 does little
>>>> global warming, helping millions shake off the fear of horrible things
>>>> to come.
>>>
>>>it claims a lot of things which it doesn't back up with science. To me
>>>the
>>>unscientific nature of the paper means it is not interesting
>>
>> It doesn't claim anything, it refutes absurd claims by the
>> IPCC of terrible things.
>>
>> Usually the number of references of merit is what makes a
>> paper worth publication.
>
> no usually the strict adherence to scientific principle gets a paper
> published in a peer reviewed journal of note
>
>>
>> But new ideas and well described processes are important to
>> be able to get a clear picture of the absurdity of a minute
>> concentration of a trace gas being able to affect temperature more than
>> the major acknowledged greenhouse gas which exists in more than
>> 40 times the concentration.
>
> I am all for new ideas and am interested in anything that repudiates
> currently held veiws but this paper doesn't
That's because your understanding of AGW isn't scientific its religious.
It's also impossible to disprove the existence of a god that somebody choose
to believe in. Only a complete fool would suggest that this or any paper
could "reputiate," that which exists only in your imagination.
>
>>
>> But go ahead, listen to your leader, talk about a
>> hypothetical global catastrophe, it is a good conversation piece for
>> retards.
>
>
>
|