On Apr 21, 9:45*am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]
I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

On Apr 21, 7:58*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:45*am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Idiot.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:58 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them
has been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Idiot.

Denialist for "I cannot refute a word you said." lol

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]
I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

=============================
That doesn't seem to be the case Roger. Once again you have suckered me
into calling up a link which doesn't answer the question but instead
just gives you a soap box.

On Apr 21, 3:08*pm, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

=============================
That doesn't seem to be the case Roger. Once again you have suckered me
into calling up a link which doesn't answer the question but instead
just gives you a soap box.

Once again you haven't read the link provided to you,
but that's why you're called a denier.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 3:08 pm, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them
has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

=============================
That doesn't seem to be the case Roger. Once again you have suckered
me
into calling up a link which doesn't answer the question but instead
just gives you a soap box.

Once again you haven't read the link provided to you,
but that's why you're called a denier.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I read it.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:08:53 -0400, "James" wrote:


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]
I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them has
been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

=============================
That doesn't seem to be the case Roger. Once again you have suckered me
into calling up a link which doesn't answer the question but instead
just gives you a soap box.


It sure gives me a soap box, choosing 1750 as a baseline is
absurd, maybe using the proxy from 50,000 years ago as a baseline
would give them more warming anomalies at present.


I propose using all years since 1992 as a baseline, as it
would provide a baseline using almost the full station list that
is presently being used.


Too bad they know the results would not fit their agenda,
but if the results were to show warming, I could accept that it is
warming.

marcodbeast wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:58 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "James" wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder what the percentage is. Co2 is miniscule and one of them
has been described as too heavy to enter the upper atmosphere.

But, if you get your information from real
scientists, instead of right wing witch
doctors, you get a much different story.
Please see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Idiot.

Denialist for "I cannot refute a word you said." lol

No, it wasn't a comment, it's his signature.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy