Will the "geologist" ever address his erroneous statement about vapor?

I'll take your word that I said that. What I meant to say was that a vapor is a gas below its critical point. I have no idea how it came out that way but you know you say a lot of things and sometimes things your write (shoot I misspelled it as "right" and had to edit it) don't come out as they originally were in your head.

Frankly I thought you lost your mind since I obviously know vapor exists in the atmosphere.

Are you still trying to prove a point that makes no difference in the debate? Show someone misstated something insignificant, and therefore you are right about everything?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Similarly, when I say Hawaii gets a lot of rainfall, attempting to show that warmer temp climates can indeed get a lot of rainfall. DO you knw what pointing out that one small portion of Hawaii gets little rain actually shows????? NOTHING!!!

Water vapor is water molecules in the air from evaporation, instead of boiling.

Now back to the real debate.

How can we justify tax solutions with no limit on the amount of taxes, no limit on the length of the taxation and no knowledge about the amount of CO2 reductions we will see from such measures.

How can warmers justify saying that AGW is going to cause massive crops failures, given the last 50 years have seen increases in crop production that OUTPACE population increases. Now while the crop production increased due to technology, this MEANS that we cannot see any decrease in teh past and would not be able to distinguish if any future decrease in rate of growth, resulted from a lack of demand or AGW.

How many people are going to die from AGW and how are those numbers justified? This is HUGELY important, because some methods of CO2 mitigation CAUSE death. For example, the world bank not loaning third world countries money to create coal power plant certainly has caused many deaths. Oddly enough, the World Bank brags about having taken this measure.

You see how these are important and the fact that a small portion of Hawaii received little rain, does not really impact the debate???

I live in an area of the world where we regularly get above 95% humidity. Currently, however, it is at 84%. When it gets too humid, for fear of not being scalded by water vapour, we often have to wear fire proximity suits if we want to go out in public. Makes picking up women quite difficult sometimes.

Vapor is what most of my answers now turn into. To try to answer the question despite that high risk of a boiling point being applied: I doubt it, but maybe he could address grammar instead of "geology."

I believe the "geologist" is not a coward and I expect he will address his erroneous statement.

i don't know

deniers never do.