It just happens that scientists rely on definitions to communicate. It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.<quoted text>
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.
(spits out bait)
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
Why don't you look up the words, reactor and reaction!
It was a big hook that caught you.
As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.
That hook is still hurting you, so it shows. You just wanted to be a denier on the sly.