Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
"HeyBub" ) writes:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...



The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.


As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.



I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.

If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!

SNIP from here

Latest reading is 391.4 ppm. I got this from www.wattsupwiththat.com,
a site widely considered skeptical of manmade global warming.

--
- Don Klipstein )


Who took the measurement Snippy? Who made the gas analyser?
What's its error tolerance? How many measurement
were taken to get that average number? Where and when were they taken?