|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2009 0:59:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Nov 27, 2009 2:29:15 GMT
Nine bucks a pop for a paper that tells me what I already know, that reduced insolation reduces the oceans ability to absorb CO2, is a bit steep. Of course, there is a reason for the last decade's jump in both the soot that temporarily reduced the area of the Arctic ice pack, and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Allow me to link you to a much too brief guided tour of the source: www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/And do remember that all this pollution is a result of the Clinton Administration's decision to de-industrialize the United States. To the benefit of Robert Rubin, Rubin's associates, some politicians, and almost no one else. Stranger |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2009 3:37:04 GMT
Nine bucks a pop for a paper that tells me what I already know, that reduced insolation reduces the oceans ability to absorb CO2, is a bit steep. Of course, there is a reason for the last decade's jump in both the soot that temporarily reduced the area of the Arctic ice pack, and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Allow me to link you to a much too brief guided tour of the source: www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/And do remember that all this pollution is a result of the Clinton Administration's decision to de-industrialize the United States. To the benefit of Robert Rubin, Rubin's associates, some politicians, and almost no one else. Stranger Stranger: After looking at those pictures I am even more upset. A trading partner who doesn't use current tecknology to reduce polution is unacceptable. The AGW crowd has re-directed over 50 billion dollars for "research" that is junk. Talk about pure travesty. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 10:25:05 GMT
Sigurdur,
I am really confused as to why you think this paper is "explosive" (as stated in the other thread). Please can you give us your interpretation of its results before I discuss.
|
|
