The rather large lady is starting to warble

[Old Rocks]

As no one is saying the spectra are something other than what they are, you are being irrelevant, as usual.

Strawman.

Gotta love your 'logic'.

Moron.

LOL. No answer, just ignorant yap-yap. Sure you are a scientist. And I am Paul Bunyan.

Answer? To what? To something I never argued and have no intention of arguing (ie. your tired strawman)?

What part of the word 'irrelevance' has you so confused?

As you have not demonstrated even an ounce of logic, yet, I can understand why you are clueless about strawman fallacies, even when I used it in a perfectly defining context.

You continue arguing with yourself, though, and keep being irrelevant. You consistently haven't a clue.

You are a perfect clown, though.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

So, let me get this straight: You argue your strawman - that folks are saying the spectra are something other than what they are; I tell you that no one is arguing that the spectra are something other than what they are; you come back and tell me I am ignorant and yapping for telling you that you're arguing a strawman (arguing something that no one is saying differently); then you post EXACTLY what I just told you - that no one is arguing the spectra - no one that I have ever seen.

Damn, you are one complete moron. You obviously don't even know what basic research is. You gave an example of content on an AGW site that explicitely states that the basic research on the spectra exists and you seem to think that proves that there is someone arguing that the spectra are something other than what they are????????????????????

You are a moron or on crack. I cannot see there being any other possible conclusions about your mental capacity, or lack there of. News flash, idiot: someone saying that the basic research exists on the spectra of CO2 does not mean they are saying the spectra are something other than what they are.

You clearly do not understand any content of what you read.

I fully understand that all you have posted is yap-yap about how illogical I am, without referances to evidence that the sites I have presented from scientific articles, a great many from peer reviewed sources, are incorrect.

Pretty much you are just a somewhat better spoken troll than KookyBill.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well the only one you guys care about is CO2 and that is 14.5 microns and that is allready covered by water vapor. Anything else faux environmentalist?

Other than the fact that you are lying again? And here is the proof.

Climate Change - A quick rebuttal to Augie Auer's opinion in the NZ Herald

Lying? No, but I did make a mistake. It is actually three small bands that it reflects in 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers.


A few decades ago, even before the GW fraud began, scientists figured out that CO2 blockes around 8% of the infrared radiation from penetrating the atmosphere. This corelates to bandwidth quite well. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of IR radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Additionally CO2 does its work within 10 meters. After that 10 meter distance it basically does nothing. Combine that with the theoretical increase in temp of .6C when you double the first time followed by a .4C increase the next time you double followed by a .2C increase after ytou double again and you don't get near that 2 degree rise that you are so worried about.

Even thought the world would be better off if it were warmer. So there you go you faux environmentalist. Over to you!

Once again, pure bullshit, long since disproven by physicists. There ain't no such saturation point, baby. On this site you can find what real scientists state concerning that.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Another point, you claim to be a scientist, and I claim only to be a millwright. But I did the research on the CO2 absorption spectra before I posted. You did not. You just yapped, and then was proven wrong. Is that how you do all of your science?

 

[Si modo]

LOL. No answer, just ignorant yap-yap. Sure you are a scientist. And I am Paul Bunyan.

Answer? To what? To something I never argued and have no intention of arguing (ie. your tired strawman)?

What part of the word 'irrelevance' has you so confused?

As you have not demonstrated even an ounce of logic, yet, I can understand why you are clueless about strawman fallacies, even when I used it in a perfectly defining context.

You continue arguing with yourself, though, and keep being irrelevant. You consistently haven't a clue.

You are a perfect clown, though.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

So, let me get this straight: You argue your strawman - that folks are saying the spectra are something other than what they are; I tell you that no one is arguing that the spectra are something other than what they are; you come back and tell me I am ignorant and yapping for telling you that you're arguing a strawman (arguing something that no one is saying differently); then you post EXACTLY what I just told you - that no one is arguing the spectra - no one that I have ever seen.

Damn, you are one complete moron. You obviously don't even know what basic research is. You gave an example of content on an AGW site that explicitely states that the basic research on the spectra exists and you seem to think that proves that there is someone arguing that the spectra are something other than what they are????????????????????

You are a moron or on crack. I cannot see there being any other possible conclusions about your mental capacity, or lack there of. News flash, idiot: someone saying that the basic research exists on the spectra of CO2 does not mean they are saying the spectra are something other than what they are.

You clearly do not understand any content of what you read.

I fully understand that all you have posted is yap-yap about how illogical I am, without referances to evidence that the sites I have presented from scientific articles, a great many from peer reviewed sources, are incorrect.

Pretty much you are just a somewhat better spoken troll than KookyBill.

One more time, Rocks: You posted, yet again, that strawman that folks are saying the spectra are something other than what they are. (I might add that you posted that as a response to something that had nothing to do with spectra.)

I'll type slowly:
No
one
is
saying
that
the
spectra
are
not
what
they
are.

That's what a strawman is. It is a fallacy. It is irrelevant.

Thus, every time you post that, it is irrelevant. Very irrelevant.

And, in some bizarre attempt to show it is relevant, you post some quote from some AGW site saying exactly what I tell you each time you tell us about the spectra - that the basic research on it exists...what you said, what I said, what every sophomore chemistry class says.

It is irrelevant. You obviously cannot even comprehend the content of what you quote because what you quoted is exactly what I said.

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THE SPECTRA ARE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE, except for you arguing with yourself.





Moron.

 

[westwall]

The sceintific world knows that man effects global warming.

Many political hacks refuse this sceince for political reasons

Please learn how to spell properly...it is SCIENCE you buffoon!

 

[code1211]

Ah yes, maintain a iron curtain against the truth. That has worked so well in the past.

Until the turn of this century, people like you maintained that there was no warming occuring, in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Now that the evidence of the warming is so overwhelming, you are maintaining that it has nothing to do with the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now as for the warming being so good for us, why don't you ask the Russian farmers how much the warming this year aided them? Or the Pakistani farmer how much a change in weather pattern aided him?

e truthinessmatters you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.

I know that 95% of the scientists in the world think that you are full of shit.

Do you have a link to a survey of all of the scientists on Earth that will support that claim?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The sceintific world knows that man effects global warming.

Many political hacks refuse this sceince for political reasons

I'm not a trained or professional scientist but I'm able to read and analyze and understand most of what passes for Global Warming Science and while there's a lot of computer models and back slapping, there's almost nothing I'd call "Science" behind any of it.

No real scientist would ever be caught dead doing something as stupid as this:

Wheel of Climate Change!
​

 

[The Infidel]

oH REALLY...?



Anyone else see the irony in this idiots posts?




Old Rocks.... you are a useful idiot and you just dont know it.

Really? So show me scientific evidence that shows the absorption spectra of the GHGs is differant than the physicists have been stating for 150 years.

Since all you do is yap, I access you as another willfully ignorant fool.

Well the only one you guys care about is CO2 and that is 14.5 microns and that is allready covered by water vapor. Anything else faux environmentalist?

Thanks... Im too lazy to argue with Old pebbles.... very boring!

 

[Charles_Main]

Here they are yet again spewing hate on science.

Who is they? What hate?

What sicence could be the better question. TM still holds to the idea that every scientist on earth agrees with her. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But then she made a similar comment when Missouri Made a law saying life begins at conception. Ignoring the UNDENIABLE fact that Science proves beyond a doubt that once a Human egg is fertilized it begins to grow and divide and is BY Definition alive.

Believe she said they were forcing their religious beliefs on people despite Science or something like that. Then ran away when I mentioned that YOU CAN not deny it is alive.

 

[Old Rocks]

e truthinessmatters you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.

I know that 95% of the scientists in the world think that you are full of shit.

Do you have a link to a survey of all of the scientists on Earth that will support that claim?

OK, Code, how about a link to a scientific society that states that AGW is not real. Even one in Outer Slobovia. Can you do that? Should be simple for you, for you state that there is no scientific consensus on AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sceintific world knows that man effects global warming.

Many political hacks refuse this sceince for political reasons

I'm not a trained or professional scientist but I'm able to read and analyze and understand most of what passes for Global Warming Science and while there's a lot of computer models and back slapping, there's almost nothing I'd call "Science" behind any of it.

No real scientist would ever be caught dead doing something as stupid as this:

Wheel of Climate Change!
​

No real scientist would work at MIT is what you are saying Frank?

Global warming may be twice as bad as previously expected - USATODAY.com

MIT scientists stand near a "roulette wheel" that shows their estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Study co-author Ronald Prinn is seated to the right of the wheel

 

[IanC]

AGW is real. But the effects of it are trivial compared to the natural variation in climate.

Are all of these societies that you defer to stating that AGW is the only cause of warming?