So you want my replies to be more articulate, not a problem. Given the acrimonious and garrulous replies steeped in ignorance and omissions this shall be brief.
- You claim absolutely that in my last two replies there was “nothing of any scientific importance, just more of his unsubstantiated conjecture with no facts; just more almost insane unsubstantiated conjecture.” This states in no uncertain terms that you do not believe in any conventional, or proven science. Such as the names of the different layers of the atmosphere, or how the 2nd law of thermal dynamics works. Both of which would be odd since you have attempted to use both to justify and prove your theorem. Although odd, it is not surprising since you have in more than one instance contradicted yourself. This point is a lie due either to intentional obfuscation or a failure to read the post, something you have admitted you do.
- Even though I had admitted without reservation my poorly chosen and executed example, I have clearly articulated how C and CO become CO2, and unlike you acknowledge that both C and CO are part of the discussion given your open reference to industry. Your insistence that it can only pertain to CO2 is merely an attempt to remove empirical data and narrow the context in order to justify your chosen position. An analogy would be trying to discuss how a gasoline engine functions while attempting to limit the conversation to the spark plugs only. Any conclusions drawn from such a conversation would be false, as it would have culled relevant information that is required for both context and a comprehensive conclusion. Something you avoid in the present discussion. This point of yours is a lie due to your intentional omissions.
- Openly admitting how an error occurred, taking responsibility for that error, and then explaining what it was supposed to be is what you call dishonest. Dishonesty would be evading what had occurred, evading the context, refusing to admit an error or omitting information to push a narrative. I have done none of those, the same cannot be said for you. This point is a lie due to the simple fact I have not done what you accuse and that you have.
- In nothing more than a simple ad hominem attack, you chose to accuse me of mathematical errors, “ & also is not that sharp at math or understanding the plainly written word, such as that one ppm is equal to one minute in the number of minutes in two years”, as well as arguing over a simple math equation, “This would be very straight forward and not worth arguing about for almost everyone except Michael James”. Both of which are outright falsehoods.
- You had posted the original information to prove scale, arguing that I was “ equate the vastness of the earth’s atmosphere with the confines of the human body”, and to show how bad that was you choose to equate it the vastness of the earth’s atmosphere to things even smaller and less complex. Doing exactly that which you complained about. If you actually believed that my comparison could not be valid, it would have invalidated your examples as well. This would be a lie by doing exactly that which you invalidated hence proving my example to be valid.
- You claim the math is in error, and yet it is not. Your math of “ 1 hr.=60 min X 24=1,440 min in one day. 1,440 X 365=525,600 525,600 X 2 = 1,051,200 1,051,200”. That does not prove my math to be incorrect. 1 ppm is 1 out of 1,000,000. 1,000,000 minutes is approx 694.5 days. 1,000,000 / 60 (minutes in an hour) = 16,666.6666 hours. 16,666.6666 (hours) / 24 (hours in a day) = 694.4444 (days). My approximation is off by approx. 230.4 minutes, or approx. 3 hours and 50 minutes, or 0.0002% if you prefer. Your approximation is off by 35.55 days, or 51,200 minutes, or 5.12% if you prefer. Since your analogy was for scale I also included the context, CO2 is 400 ppm. 400 ppm = 400 out of 1,000,000 = (400 / 400) out of (1,000,000 / 4000 = 1 out of 2500. 2500 / 60 (minutes in an hour) = 41.6666 hours = 41.6666 (hours) / 24 (hours in a day) = 1.7361 which is approx 1 day, 17 hours and approx 36 minutes. Scaling upwards 400 ppm would equal 400 minutes out of 694.4444 days equaling approx 36 minutes, or 6 hours and 36 minutes out of every approx 694 1/2 days. The math is correct, in fact it is more correct than your approximation, hence showing your claim that my math is incorrect to be a lie.
- After my reply to your examples I had written “ And all this showed what? Not a damn thing, I get the scale, and it doesn’t prove anything I said wrong. The only thing it shows is that even though it is a small amount, it is still noticeable, which is something you have been trying to imply it can’t at these levels.” Which clearly shows I was not “arguing about” it as you claimed, I was in fact disregarding it. The only argument is yours, in which you claimed the math was incorrect, and that I was arguing over it. Which is an easily proven lie.
5. The last is merely an accusation that since I choose to write in a plain style there must be an inference about my comprehension abilities. This post proves such an inference to be false.
Now for the second post.
- You start out with a premise based upon a lie. You claimed I have stated that I shave been studying climate change. I have engaged in this discussion, yet at no point have I ever claimed I studied anything, or implied how much I do or do not know. The only one who has claimed to be knowledgeable on this subject would be you, and you refuse to deal with any of your errors or contradictions, and you do not discuss, as you admitted you mostly just reply with your talking points having no actual idea whether they are germane to what has been stated or not. This heavily implies you have an personal agenda with this topic, and no ability to comprehend anything that is not one of your already preselected talking points. I have looked into this issue given it will have an effect on my livelihood and my children's futures, that is not what you are trying to imply about me though, which would make your claim another lie.
- You demand I provide you with an experiment that can measure the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as it’s effect on climate. If you have studied this as you claimed then you would already know how much radiation is delivered from the sun, and that with spectroscopy has been able to show the levels of radiation broken down by specifics. It has already been determined how much radiation is arriving and how much is leaving, and how much each gas has an effect on that. This verifiable information allows for the radiative forcing formulas to determine how much energy is being trapped, reflected and released. The radiative formula for CO2 is dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co). With the information from NASA AIRS, we can observe, measure, and verify the interplay and effect of each gas. This allowed the theory for water vapor feedback and the interplay with CO2 to be tested and proven as valid 9 years ago. With this modern technology all but one of the climate change models were proven to be wrong. One still remains, and the information that has been verified has proven it to be valid. The experiment has already been done. It was shown that more energy was remaining in the atmosphere, many mechanisms for that were put forth, modern ability to test put all but one to rest, greenhouse gases, the question of why had to be answered, which the test showed was an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and then to verify it, which was done very simply by the fact that the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponded exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2. Being able to see and measure the radiation levels allowed this to be already answered and tested. Unlike your continued use of references mostly from 50+ years ago, this has used modern technological advances to accurately measure this phenomenon. I had already mentioned the NASA AIRS information in a previous post. This is just an attempt by you to avoid dealing with your previous rantings, by doing nothing more than demanding continuing proofs without dealing with what has already been discussed. There is nowhere left for you to go on this, since all the information has already been shown to match. We both know you will have no ability to accept that.
- You make the argument that science is never fully settled, which is true. With the continual addition of new technology, it becomes more and more possible to test the theories for validity. It is also funny beyond words that you would state this, given you desperately are clinging to information that was decided 50+ years ago, and ignoring that modern technological advances have allowed us to see some of those theories were not correct. You also complain about scientist working for an agenda and trying to prove their answer without accepting that things may change or proven wrong, and yet that is exactly what you are doing. You are clinging to your chosen agenda, and ignoring anything that does not fit it. This is also why there are science advisory boards, to make sure that something is done using a scientific method, something you have not once replied, which was the whole point this started with.
- The technology to test the viability of the climate change models has only become recently available, something you ignore because it was not done before the technology existed. Funny since you posted recent experiments that confirmed old theories. You ignore their results, and the information they have provided to cling to your chosen agenda and theory. Which by your own words would make you guilty of something worse than that which you accuse me of being, a person who cannot even accept that which exist, has been documented, and has been proven with verifiable test. Someone so ignorant they would start stomping their feet and raving that it is sunny outside even though the rain is clearly falling.
In NONE of this, or any of your SIX other post have you actually once talked about the whole point. The science advisory board. In each of your 7 increasingly hostile and erratic post you avoid anything that was replied to the previous post. The sheer amount of stupidity it takes to write 7 post always avoiding the actual topic is mind blowing.
At this point, with your obviously increasing anger and frustration at being denied the agreement your sense of entitlement is apparently demanding, I have proven you are a liar. I have proven you are ignorant of the agenda based topic you are pushing. I have proven you wildly contradict yourself. And I have proven you have no idea or ability to understand what the context of my first post even was, or even understand or be bothered to read anything replied to your agenda topic.
I have now spent more time on an ignorant lying pos than they deserved, regardless of their childish and obviously inflated opinion of themselves and their knowledge and will do so no more on this thread. Since you have been proven to be both wrong and a liar, I will waste no more time on you. Only these last 3 paragraphs will be replied to you, with the number of post updated to reflect the addition of more idiotic rants. Was this articulate enough for you? Most likely, and with your admissions that you can’t read very well I used words and concepts that are way outside your ability to comprehend. You have a nice day!