On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

Jose wrote:
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven

Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation
of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider
either of those to be unproven? If so, which.

It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What
proof do you consider to be missing?

-- nor has the case for manmade
global warming.

The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the
observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established
both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that
you doubt about either or both of those?


The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where
it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is
on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer
any reasonable questions you would like to pose there.

Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational
excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups
frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I
trust you will not.

--

FF