To the rest of you following this warped thread: My technical take on the "energy windows" is unfortunately posted between this kerfuffle between MachineZero and smutboy420 about anthropogenic GHGs. So it appears I am engaged in that debate. I am not and won't waste the time in this forum. However, SB420 commits an error in logic so I'm gonna just speak to that.

The argument is of the form:
All A are B
C is not A
Therefore C is not B

For example:

All poisons are dangerous to humans
Angry bears are not poisonous
Therefore angry bears are not dangerous.

Ah yeah, but they are dangerous for other reasons.