The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

[Old Rocks]

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?

Yes, unfortunately, Daveboy is. A prime example of the saying, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Yes, unfortunately, Daveboy is. A prime example of the saying, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative".

How are you making out finding one repeatable experiment that show how a 100ppm increase in CO2 warms temperature 5 degrees, melts the Arctic floor and spawns killer tornadoes and Cat 5 Hurricanes.

I've been asking you for 2 years now, you'd think by now you could find one

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Ol' Walleyes claims a degree in Geology, but this old rockhound has caught him saying some of the dumbest things concerning that science.

And his views on AGW are so over the top. Claims the whole of the AGU and GSA are in on a conspiracy to promote bad science concerning AGW. He claims that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on that conspiracy to promote AGW and Communism.

Poor senile old gentleman seems to see Commies under his bed. His memory does not seems to have stopped about 1990.

Now Daveyboy has not claimed a degree. Thank God. What school would want to claim him as an alumni? He is incapable of reading a scientific paper and understanding the content. Proof of that is this thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Yes, unfortunately, Daveboy is. A prime example of the saying, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative".

How are you making out finding one repeatable experiment that show how a 100ppm increase in CO2 warms temperature 5 degrees, melts the Arctic floor and spawns killer tornadoes and Cat 5 Hurricanes.

I've been asking you for 2 years now, you'd think by now you could find one

Another proof of that statement.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course not.

But you are.

I can't explain it any simpler.

You can't explain it.

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.

Ol' Walleyes claims a degree in Geology, but this old rockhound has caught him saying some of the dumbest things concerning that science.

And his views on AGW are so over the top. Claims the whole of the AGU and GSA are in on a conspiracy to promote bad science concerning AGW. He claims that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on that conspiracy to promote AGW and Communism.

Poor senile old gentleman seems to see Commies under his bed. His memory does not seems to have stopped about 1990.

Now Daveyboy has not claimed a degree. Thank God. What school would want to claim him as an alumni? He is incapable of reading a scientific paper and understanding the content. Proof of that is this thread.

Your arrogance makes you look pathetic

 

[Old Rocks]

How can one help being arrogant around such a bunch of cretins?

Here you are claiming the whole of the scientific establishment worldwide is in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool everyone concerning AGW. That the conspiracy began in the 1820's with Joseph Fourier.

You know what? In one way you are correct, Frankyboy. The Enlightenment was and is a conspiracy against willfull ignorance. And as such, it definately is something you dislike.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, unfortunately, Daveboy is. A prime example of the saying, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative".

How are you making out finding one repeatable experiment that show how a 100ppm increase in CO2 warms temperature 5 degrees, melts the Arctic floor and spawns killer tornadoes and Cat 5 Hurricanes.

I've been asking you for 2 years now, you'd think by now you could find one

Another proof of that statement.

Did you forget to post the one repeatable lab experiment I've been asking you for since the first day you posted your AGW Cult nonsense?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can one help being arrogant around such a bunch of cretins?

Here you are claiming the whole of the scientific establishment worldwide is in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool everyone concerning AGW. That the conspiracy began in the 1820's with Joseph Fourier.

You know what? In one way you are correct, Frankyboy. The Enlightenment was and is a conspiracy against willfull ignorance. And as such, it definately is something you dislike.

Hello? Yes! Great news! I have a repeatable lab experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes global warming

 

[RollingThunder]

Your arrogance makes you look pathetic

Your profound and bottomless ignorance and stupidity make you look beyond 'pathetic'....somewhere around 'pond scum'....

 

[daveman]

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.

But I have. You seem to be incapable of understanding 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.

AGW isn't science. AGW scientists aren't conducting science.

That's obvious to anyone who can think for themselves.

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

I did answer. They are both in physics.

Then to use a favored tactic among the AGW cult, "You don't know anything about climate science!"

 

[daveman]

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

What a flaming hypocrite. You give me shit for providing links that back up my claims instead of using my own words.

Ahhh, but it's different when you do it. Somehow. It just is.

 

[daveman]

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?

Yes, unfortunately, Daveboy is. A prime example of the saying, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative".

Roxy, you know the difference between you and me?

I finished college.

 

[daveman]

Now Daveyboy has not claimed a degree. Thank God. What school would want to claim him as an alumni?

Vincennes University, class of '83, AAS in Laser/Electro-Optics.

What's your degree?

Oh, wait -- you didn't finish school.

Oh, well.

He is incapable of reading a scientific paper and understanding the content. Proof of that is this thread.

You never refuted the claim, Roxy. You pretend you have, but you haven't.

Then again, you pretend a lot. You live in a fantasy world.

 

[konradv]

Your arrogance makes you look pathetic

Your profound and bottomless ignorance and stupidity make you look beyond 'pathetic'....somewhere around 'pond scum'....

Pond scum? Maybe in a billion years we'll have something!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Call me whatever the fuck you want, but everyone sees how you never, ever never ever show us a lab experiment showing how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the thing you allege.

 

[konradv]

Call me whatever the fuck you want, but everyone sees how you never, ever never ever show us a lab experiment showing how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the thing you allege.

If I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. If I put in 100 ppm more, it absorbs more. If that doesn't explain AGW, you're going to have show how it doesn't violate Conservation of Energy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Call me whatever the fuck you want, but everyone sees how you never, ever never ever show us a lab experiment showing how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the thing you allege.

If I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. If I put in 100 ppm more, it absorbs more. If that doesn't explain AGW, you're going to have show how it doesn't violate Conservation of Energy.

It makes snows in October in NYC? Really? It makes Bigger squirrels? Really?

Do you even know what "PPM" Stands for? Can you express 100PPM as a percentage?

 

[konradv]

Call me whatever the fuck you want, but everyone sees how you never, ever never ever show us a lab experiment showing how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the thing you allege.

If I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. If I put in 100 ppm more, it absorbs more. If that doesn't explain AGW, you're going to have show how it doesn't violate Conservation of Energy.

It makes snows in October in NYC? Really? It makes Bigger squirrels? Really?

Do you even know what "PPM" Stands for? Can you express 100PPM as a percentage?

Sure, if you take 390 as an acceptable current number, 100 would be just over 25% or about 11% extra "carbon forcing" over current levels. What's your point? Heat would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere and, therefore, more snow, when it meets a cold air mass. Longer, warmer summers would lead to fatter animals of all sorts. Sure sounds like possible consequences of AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. If I put in 100 ppm more, it absorbs more. If that doesn't explain AGW, you're going to have show how it doesn't violate Conservation of Energy.

It makes snows in October in NYC? Really? It makes Bigger squirrels? Really?

Do you even know what "PPM" Stands for? Can you express 100PPM as a percentage?

Sure, if you take 390 as an acceptable current number, 100 would be just over 25% or about 11% extra "carbon forcing" over current levels. What's your point? Heat would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere and, therefore, more snow, when it meets a cold air mass. Longer, warmer summers would lead to fatter animals of all sorts. Sure sounds like possible consequences of AGW.

Sounds like you're making it all up.

So if a .01% change in the total atmospheric content has such a profound effect, why is it impossible for you to show us one repeatable experiment that gives ANY much less ALL of the results you allege?

 

[konradv]

It makes snows in October in NYC? Really? It makes Bigger squirrels? Really?

Do you even know what "PPM" Stands for? Can you express 100PPM as a percentage?

Sure, if you take 390 as an acceptable current number, 100 would be just over 25% or about 11% extra "carbon forcing" over current levels. What's your point? Heat would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere and, therefore, more snow, when it meets a cold air mass. Longer, warmer summers would lead to fatter animals of all sorts. Sure sounds like possible consequences of AGW.

Sounds like you're making it all up.

So if a .01% change in the total atmospheric content has such a profound effect, why is it impossible for you to show us one repeatable experiment that gives ANY much less ALL of the results you allege?

0.01%! Try 30-40%. That's the % increase over historical averages and the REAL number that should be considered. If the low number really proved anything, why is the earth many degrees warmer than if that 0.01% wasn't there at all?