5 ms·
You didn't read the article. You cherrypicked the parts of it that you could use to justify disregarding it. That's intellectually dishonest, lazy, and frankly
by willmadden 5y ago
You didn't read the article. You cherrypicked the parts of it that you could use to justify disregarding it. That's intellectually dishonest, lazy, and frankly typical for climate change cultists.
The bulk of the article discusses hydrology and how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects. There's also a section about far higher historical C02 levels being present when temperatures were lower than today.
Respond to that part of the paper, not the tangent on the term "climate change" (which is also accurate, but not the meat of the argument).
- gspr 5y ago> how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects Where do you see this? I see a long rant about the definition of climate, sprinkled in with some cultural reference and some meaningless discussions about continuous vs discrete sampling (meaningless beyond any first year university course on any scientific topic).
- willmadden 5y agoSection 5. You have to actually read the article.