Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
What are you talking about? You are the one who said that CO2 "emits" radiation. And it doesn't trap it. Familiarize yourself with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Pointless to talk to you. It is clear that you don't have even the smallest grasp of the subject.Who would those "many" be? Perhaps those whith no degree in the hard sciences at all? And the "greenhouse effect" isn't a highly complex issue. It is quite simple and straight forward. As is much of the AGW debate. The attempt to make it highly complex is no more than a smoke screen created by the AGW proponents to disguise the bad science they are trying to terrify people like you.By the way, that "high school" experiment is all that is needed to show that you are wrong. Sorry it was so easy, but then you really didn't have a chance. You are just a parrott.Maybe you should review the track record of the national academy of sciences, and nasa. Their record on the matter of AGW doesn't warrant much trust. How often can an organization be wrong, in your opinion, and still deserve blind trust?And your circumstantial ad homenim with regard to the source of material instead of any attempt to rebutt the material itself highlights the weakness of your position. Of course, how strong can a parrott's position be?
What are you talking about? You are the one who said that CO2 "emits" radiation. And it doesn't trap it. Familiarize yourself with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Pointless to talk to you. It is clear that you don't have even the smallest grasp of the subject.
Who would those "many" be? Perhaps those whith no degree in the hard sciences at all? And the "greenhouse effect" isn't a highly complex issue. It is quite simple and straight forward. As is much of the AGW debate. The attempt to make it highly complex is no more than a smoke screen created by the AGW proponents to disguise the bad science they are trying to terrify people like you.
By the way, that "high school" experiment is all that is needed to show that you are wrong. Sorry it was so easy, but then you really didn't have a chance. You are just a parrott.
Maybe you should review the track record of the national academy of sciences, and nasa. Their record on the matter of AGW doesn't warrant much trust. How often can an organization be wrong, in your opinion, and still deserve blind trust?
And your circumstantial ad homenim with regard to the source of material instead of any attempt to rebutt the material itself highlights the weakness of your position. Of course, how strong can a parrott's position be?
