BDR529 wrote:

Q

Might give you more of a fear than a degree or two warming.

You didn't answer the question, why would I?

It must be very frustrating for you that all these ad hominem attacks
don't work.

You still haven't defeated the AGW lie, you still don't have any clue
to bring up against IR absorption by CO2 in the stratosphere, you
still don't have any word to refute the negative feedback of water
vapor.

You've repeated this several times. You do know what it meansm don't you? A
negative water vapor feedback means as CO2 (or anything) heats the
atmosphere, the changes in water vapor will tend to cool the atmosphere.
This is not the kind of science a AGW-whacko like yourself should be
promoting. Fran and Roger will have to slap you down.

The IPCC conclusion of catastrophic warming is almost totally dependent on
an assumed (and non-demonstrable) POSITIVE water vapor feedback.

A few trivial examples with modtran prove you wrong.

Find an innocent hobby like collecting postage stamps.

Q

Cat_in_awe wrote:
BDR529 wrote:

Q

Might give you more of a fear than a degree or two warming.

You didn't answer the question, why would I?

It must be very frustrating for you that all these ad hominem attacks
don't work.

You still haven't defeated the AGW lie, you still don't have any clue
to bring up against IR absorption by CO2 in the stratosphere, you
still don't have any word to refute the negative feedback of water
vapor.

You've repeated this several times. You do know what it meansm don't
you? A negative water vapor feedback means as CO2 (or anything)
heats the atmosphere, the changes in water vapor will tend to cool
the atmosphere. This is not the kind of science a AGW-whacko like
yourself should be promoting. Fran and Roger will have to slap you
down.
The IPCC conclusion of catastrophic warming is almost totally
dependent on an assumed (and non-demonstrable) POSITIVE water vapor
feedback.

Then you'll have an unbiased cite for us, yes?