Are you laughing your *** off too with the assertion that smell is more powerful than CO2?

If you mean this http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-263400...

the article itself does not look like bunk at all to me. What is, of course, laughable bunk is the robotic misinterpretation of the article by the cut-and-pasting Wattsup dupe illiterate who posted a link to it in his circa 500th fake question here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201403...

Edit: He blocks me too, of course, but you should still distinguish between links to factual information, and the amazing inability of deniers to ever fail to give a predictable brainwashed misrepresentation whenever facts are involved that go against their worship of James Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh, which they generally will, on those rare cases when actual facts are involved at all.

We are a LONG way from the situation with Holocaust denial where an anti-semitic slur or even saying Rot*sch*ld too often in connection with conspiracy gets people banned from websites or campus lectures. In climate science denial we are at the equivalent of about 1943, Rommel is in retreat from North Africa, and H*tler's Drang Nach Osten has stalled, but Aus**w*tz is still going full bore.

Deniers play a shell game going from one stock croc to the next http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Unless you can shut them down, which is utterly impossible here unless there is some kind of picket line set up around Yahoo's HQ demanding it, and that will be a cold day in h*ll, you have to NAIL each lie for what it is.

THIS case to which your question refers is NOT one of

a) A denier blog cut-paste-with no link

the link (above) from the cut-and-paste http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/26/yet-another... IS included

NOR is it

b) a link to a liar-denier blog only

NOR is it

c) just denier BS with no documentation or link

IT IS THIS:

d) a link to a BONAFIDE study MISREPRESENTED and in this case undoubtedly misunderstood to boot

Nailing WHICH form the denier deception takes is important, because otherwise YOU have a made a mistake, and therefore 100 years of a science is a hoax.

You see, this is actually NOT a forum, and it is NOT a level playing field. Deniers can say the most ignorant gibberish all they want (witness #7 on the all-time "best answer" list), they can lie like the deadest dog, and contradict themselves sentence after sentence, because THEY are waging a holy crusade against a Great Green Greasy Socialist Conspiracy, and all is fair in war and survival of the Bill of Rights which they wouldn't recognize if they were even able to read it.

NON-DENIERS have a very different set of rules. Our goal is truth, not fighting a mythical international time-traveling conspiracy. If we get one detail wrong, we generally lose, even if they say 10 more serious things wrong. Because the news media is addicted, to on the one hand 2+2=4, on the other hand it depends how you mark the +, or whether "2" might hide a decline from 3, or whether the person doing the sum ever said something that Fox News would take issue with.

It isn't the smell that matters. It is the aerosols that are given off. Here is the paper.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/fu...

Instead of writing it off how about if we wait and see if others respond to it in the peer reviewed literature or more tests are done?

Still can't get the garbage out of your keyboard, can you 'C'. You are getting better though.

In reality French perfume probably does change the climate more than CO2. Can you prove that it doesn't?

see this image http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5064321747256225&pi...

Is it that hard to understand that the moisture in the air could affect climate and reflect the sun rays.

Smell? It is possible the smell of bull$hit is a bit overwhelming in this forum.

http://instaar.colorado.edu/outreach/trees-and-voc...