tim flannery's triple backflip., page-18

  1. 135 Posts.
    "Yes, I know. I agree.

    "Every effort should be encoraged to reduce "smog-causing nasties,"awell, which CO2 isn't, we don't want to end up like China."

    better?"

    You've rather proven the point in my initial post about how true believers confuse carbon and CO2 - one is "nasty", the other is benign!

    The confusion is intentionally sown so that even those, like yourself, who profess to have some knowledge of AGW, are confused about what is what.

    Do you agree, then, that what we should be doing instead is trying to limit the amount of smog and pollution that is emitted by industry? We would all go along with that I believe. It has nothing to do with essential greenhouse gasses, just pollutants.

    That DOES appear to be what you were conceding.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.