The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

[RollingThunder]

I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.

It's certainly not helping your claims of intelligence or honesty any.

As I've told you, whenever I've asked for proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Roxy pointed to Tyndall's experiment. No others. When I read the paper myself, I found it proved no such thing.

Get it now, or are you going to keep being stupid and dishonest?

Considering there has been ample evidence that CO IS a greenhouse gas since 1861 - no, I don't see your point.

Of course you don't.

From the OP:

It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work.​

Can you refute that? No one has tried to so far.

Both you and the dufus who wrote the OP are clueless. BTW, the guy has only a Bachelors degree in geology, not physics or any area of climate science, and by his own admission: "For the past ten years, I've worked in the petroleum industry". Your 'source' is this nimrod's blog.

What neither he nor you seem able to understand is the fact that the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, but mostly opaque to infrared. Infrared "opacity" comes from absorption bands of H2O, CO2, CH4 and other molecules. What do you idiots think "opacity" means anyway? It means that the energy in the sunlight is not passing through the atmosphere but rather is being absorbed within the atmosphere. Jeez but you guys are stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.

It's certainly not helping your claims of intelligence or honesty any.

As I've told you, whenever I've asked for proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Roxy pointed to Tyndall's experiment. No others. When I read the paper myself, I found it proved no such thing.

Get it now, or are you going to keep being stupid and dishonest?

Considering there has been ample evidence that CO IS a greenhouse gas since 1861 - no, I don't see your point.

Of course you don't.

From the OP:

It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work.​

Can you refute that? No one has tried to so far.

What would it matter? The absorption spectrum of Co2 is now well known, whether or not someone got it right in 1861 is irrelevant given that we have it right now.

 

[RollingThunder]

You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

RT: Typically a day late and a dollar short.

So that's what you say now when your ignorant bullshit is blown out of the water by scientific evidence? LOLOLOL

No, it's what I say when you're all proud of yourself for presenting information that's already been presented.

Well, retard, if it has already "been presented", why are you still idiotically arguing that there are no experiments demonstrating the 'greenhouse gas' properties of CO2? Are you simply insane?

 

[daveman]

Considering there has been ample evidence that CO IS a greenhouse gas since 1861 - no, I don't see your point.

Of course you don't.

From the OP:

It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work.​

Can you refute that? No one has tried to so far.

Both you and the dufus who wrote the OP are clueless. BTW, the guy has only a Bachelors degree in geology, not physics or any area of climate science, and by his own admission: "For the past ten years, I've worked in the petroleum industry". Your 'source' is this nimrod's blog.

What neither he nor you seem able to understand is the fact that the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, but mostly opaque to infrared. Infrared "opacity" comes from absorption bands of H2O, CO2, CH4 and other molecules. What do you idiots think "opacity" means anyway? It means that the energy in the sunlight is not passing through the atmosphere but rather is being absorbed within the atmosphere. Jeez but you guys are stupid.

Well, I'll give you props for trying, but you didn't actually refute it.

 

[daveman]

So that's what you say now when your ignorant bullshit is blown out of the water by scientific evidence? LOLOLOL

No, it's what I say when you're all proud of yourself for presenting information that's already been presented.

Well, retard, if it has already "been presented", why are you still idiotically arguing that there are no experiments demonstrating the 'greenhouse gas' properties of CO2? Are you simply insane?

Where did I say that after the studies were linked?

Are you just seeing what you want to see? Leftists do that. A lot.

 

[daveman]

Considering there has been ample evidence that CO IS a greenhouse gas since 1861 - no, I don't see your point.

Of course you don't.

From the OP:

It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work.​

Can you refute that? No one has tried to so far.

What would it matter? The absorption spectrum of Co2 is now well known, whether or not someone got it right in 1861 is irrelevant given that we have it right now.

Still sticking with the deliberate misunderstanding, I see.

 

[skookerasbil]

You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

But the clueless twits are................

Global warning: climate sceptics are winning the battle - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm










I have links up the ying-yang s0n. Your side doesnt have dick.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming case solid but sceptics winning debate - Environment - NZ Herald News


Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

 

[skookerasbil]

I will admit something here...........I gotta give this guy Rolling Thunder some kudo's...........

This dolt comes in here and gets schooled on a daily basis and keeps on coming back anyway...........

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course you don't.

From the OP:

It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work.​

Can you refute that? No one has tried to so far.

What would it matter? The absorption spectrum of Co2 is now well known, whether or not someone got it right in 1861 is irrelevant given that we have it right now.

Still sticking with the deliberate misunderstanding, I see.

There's no misunderstanding, the absorption spectrum of CO2 IS well known, and I've provided you dozens of links demonstrating it.

It puzzles me why you must insist on blatant stupidity. Are you actually a moron?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You denier cultists are such clueless twits!!! Trying to deny basic science is so futile and pointless, it just demonstrates how very ignorant you are.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

But the clueless twits are................

Global warning: climate sceptics are winning the battle - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle | The Great Debate


The World Today - Climate scientist says sceptics are winning 25/01/2010










I have links up the ying-yang s0n. Your side doesnt have dick.

None of your links go to scientific papers. Did you know that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Global warming case solid but sceptics winning debate - Environment - NZ Herald News


Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

I'm not really sure who is winning what and who is losing what. The general public's opinion on a scientific theory is completely irrelevant to science. You are all in fact free to be as ignorant and deliberately moronic as you like, it doesn't change scientific truth.

 

[westwall]

Global warming case solid but sceptics winning debate - Environment - NZ Herald News


Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

I'm not really sure who is winning what and who is losing what. The general public's opinion on a scientific theory is completely irrelevant to science. You are all in fact free to be as ignorant and deliberately moronic as you like, it doesn't change scientific truth.

What, exactly, is a scientific truth?

 

[newpolitics]

Boy, the cultists sure are avoiding this thread, aren't they?

why address such idiocy? waste of time and energy.

 

[daveman]

What would it matter? The absorption spectrum of Co2 is now well known, whether or not someone got it right in 1861 is irrelevant given that we have it right now.

Still sticking with the deliberate misunderstanding, I see.

There's no misunderstanding, the absorption spectrum of CO2 IS well known, and I've provided you dozens of links demonstrating it.

It puzzles me why you must insist on blatant stupidity. Are you actually a moron?

Of course not.

But you are.

I can't explain it any simpler. Your unmerited sense of superiority is preventing you from seeing my point.

Say, I don't believe you ever answered: What field of science are your degrees in?

 

[daveman]

Boy, the cultists sure are avoiding this thread, aren't they?

why address such idiocy? waste of time and energy.

Good Gaea, you just make sure you don't expose yourself to any dangerous, conflicting ideas!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Global warming case solid but sceptics winning debate - Environment - NZ Herald News


Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

I'm not really sure who is winning what and who is losing what. The general public's opinion on a scientific theory is completely irrelevant to science. You are all in fact free to be as ignorant and deliberately moronic as you like, it doesn't change scientific truth.

What, exactly, is a scientific truth?

You can find it here:

Google Scholar

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Still sticking with the deliberate misunderstanding, I see.

There's no misunderstanding, the absorption spectrum of CO2 IS well known, and I've provided you dozens of links demonstrating it.

It puzzles me why you must insist on blatant stupidity. Are you actually a moron?

Of course not.

But you are.

I can't explain it any simpler.

You can't explain it.

Your unmerited sense of superiority is preventing you from seeing my point.

There's nothing quite as snobby an armchair scientist who thinks he's smarter than folks who have studied science all their lives.

Say, I don't believe you ever answered: What field of science are your degrees in?

I did answer. They are both in physics.

 

[westwall]

I'm not really sure who is winning what and who is losing what. The general public's opinion on a scientific theory is completely irrelevant to science. You are all in fact free to be as ignorant and deliberately moronic as you like, it doesn't change scientific truth.

What, exactly, is a scientific truth?

You can find it here:

Google Scholar

I asked YOU what is a scientific truth...exactly. Use your own words please. This WILL be graded.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What, exactly, is a scientific truth?

You can find it here:

Google Scholar

I asked YOU what is a scientific truth...exactly. Use your own words please. This WILL be graded.

I'm done with school.