From: "Geo." 

"John Beckett"  wrote in message
news:gfsr23hsovo587v5vqrepadpthdmsh8sh4{at}4ax.com...

> The author seems to think that if you were to work through the preceding
> 128 pages of maths then you would find this statement about Mars to be
> rather self-evident. I infer that the main factors are the lack of
> atmospheric water on Mars, and the low atmospheric density, but I will
> have to leave understanding the process for another time.

That's exactly his point, you get far more warming from water vapor (which
requires a certain temperature range) than from CO2 and clouds even if they
are methane based can make a huge difference as well.

Also did you see his comments about the ratio .0003, .009, and 64.000 for
venus where CO2 is enough to have an effect? I just have trouble believing
.0003 is enough to have any sort of measurable effect and certainly NONE of
the UN "scientists" have any proof to the contrary. The whole
carbon credits thing is just designed to make money for certain people who
are pushing this stupid idea, for example a national news network would be
able to sell their carbon credits to say an electric company who supplies
them with electricity..

Geo. 

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5