In message , Orator
writes
Roger Coppock wrote:
Orator wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe..._review_econom
ics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
present CO2 at 350 ppm, . . .
The present CO2 concentration is 380 ppm.
...and that is but _one_ of many different claims and is still a
massive amount below the Stern claim. Thank you for supporting my
finding - Stern report is raw hysteria!
You can't justify that assertion on the basis of the one remark that
you've managed to misrepresent.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...co2_mm_mlo.dat
Oh, and the "proof" is where? All I see is a series of figures. No info
on where it is taken from, nor at the altitude it is taken from,
nothing of what is _critical_ information to know! For all I know these
figures are taken from the middle of New York city traffic jam - the
smoke stack of an old coal fired power station!
Why do you present such clap trap for?
So what makes you think that the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
Center is an unreliable source ?
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
ROTFL! Citing your own bible, the one you wrote yourself! You have to
be kidding!
So specifically, what is wrong with the data ?
What equipment do you have of measuring CO2 content of the atmosphere,
hmmm? You know from ground level to some 100 km up?
If you'd read the graph, you'd have seen where the data came from.
BTW, when are you going to present some actual evidence? I have
provided sources,
And misrepresented others...
you have not done other than resort to immature abuse and shouting! Is
that the best you can do?
Here is an intelligent assessment, have a look at this instead:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...1183e42ec5002a
Let's not leap to conclusions. It looks like one of your posts from
this thread where you go off the deep end about
"greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2"
Where do they so limit ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore