It does, And in fact it captures carbon elements including co2, co1, etc. and
renders them back to earth including in the oceans.
I don't know of what Dick is talking about, though he does modify his
conjectures in latter posts to includemethane, co2 and carbon monoxide as true
greenhouse gases.
I don't get the water vapor vector myself and wish he would explain the concept.
Regardless, H20 vapor isn't a greenhouse gas per se as we define it, but is a
sort of catalyst for binding carbon in the atmosphere, albeit temporarily for
it always, in my knoledge falls inevetably to earth, though recycled, or
recharged through evaporation.
Still,while uncertain to his claims I am certain that Dick does have a sort of
valid engineering point here. Or at least I guess he does if he'd only explain
in a scientific manner.
That said I'd rather listen to music, dabble in poetry and....Well never
mind....
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:57 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Thanks for signing my petition to the DNC.
Now can you share it?
Doesn't the water vapor rain out pretty quickly?
On 1/14/2016 9:01 PM, R. E. Driscoll Sr wrote:
Miriam:
This will sound like I am bragging but I spent a large portion of my
industrial life disagreeing with the 'scientific world' in my chosen industry
and wound up being correct a large portion of the time. Water vapor is
considered to be a 'greenhouse gas' but its effect is more widely variable by
reason of the wide variation in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide on the other
hand is much more stable. There is a great deal of literature that indicates
the effects of water vapor are greater than that of Carbon Dioxide. Much of
the statement about Carbon Dioxide is due to 'noise' in the editorial world.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/14/2016 2:25 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Dick,
ABout 97% of the scientific world disagrees with you, at least so I've read.
I've also read that the big oil companies did research 40 years ago which
shoed that global warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases, and
that they then did precisely what the tobacco industry did when it found out
that Nicotine caused cancer. They paid scientists to diesseminate
disinformation.
Miriam .
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:59 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Thanks for signing my petition to the
DNC. Now can you share it?
All:
After nearly 50 years of practice as a Chemical Engineer I have concluded
that no one knows with a high degree of certainty just what is occurring to
cause the apparent change in climatic conditions. There are a goodly number
of proposals that seem to indicate that an increase in Carbon Dioxide is the
primary factor, the primary source being the products of combustion. My own
opinion is that water vapor is the primary causative factor since about two
volumes of water vapor are created for each carbon dioxide created.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/14/2016 8:22 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I suppose that if the true causes of climate change were tackled,
there'd be
less concern about plastic bags. But then there's that huge island
of
plastic floating in our oceans. It's like every solution leads to
another
problem.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman
(Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:52 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Thanks for signing my petition to
the
DNC. Now can you share it?
The issue is that for people that don't have the luxury of driving
to the
store having to bring reusable bags is an added inconvenience and
many of
the canvas bags are difficult to carry and don't seem to hold as
much. I am
old enough to remember that at one time plastic bags were considered
a
panacea because people weren't using as many trees by not using
paper bags.
The problem with the California law in addition is that stores can
charge up
to .10 for each bag and there are concerns about how this will
impact low
income people.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Martian.Lady
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: Thanks for signing my petition to
the
DNC. Now can you share it?
Hi
While I agree in theory with banning plastic bags I have a
problem. Where
we live, I have a trash shoot for all trash. I reuse all the
plastic bags I
get from the stores. Usually I use cloth bags for groceries but
just get
enough plastic bags for trash. If they outlaw plastic bags, we will
need to
buy bags at the store. reusing bags makes more sense than buying
them.
Perhaps a lot of people don't do this though.
Marsha
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by
Avast.
www.avast.com
