Mythbusters CO2 Scam Busted!!

[CrusaderFrank]

Go to 1:37 in the video

CO2 = 7.348%!!!!



Oops

73,480 PPM!

not 400

And they got 1 degree from it

Now you know why the AGWCult can never show an experiment that shows "warming" from a 120PPM increase

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's the end of the AGW Scam

 

[Mad Scientist]

That's the end of the AGW Scam

Based on a YouTube Video alone?

Do you work at the State Department now Frank?

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha. Good find!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We kept asking, "How much CO2 is in the tanks?"

I called the scientists to ask him and never heard back.

Went back through the video and stopped when the zipped past the CO2% and

VIOLA!!!!

73,480/PPM

 

[jc456]

Go to 1:37 in the video

CO2 = 7.348%!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Oops

73,480 PPM!

not 400

And they got 1 degree from it

Now you know why the AGWCult can never show an experiment that shows "warming" from a 120PPM increase

Correction, not even one degree. .9 was the reading off the control.

 

[mamooth]

The point of that experiment was simply to show the greenhouse effect existed, and it did. So what is Frank babbling about? Is he actually under the impression that a little box represents the earth?

 

[jc456]

The point of that experiment was simply to show the greenhouse effect existed, and it did. So what is Frank babbling about? Is he actually under the impression that a little box represents the earth?

It does figure you wouldn't understand. hah!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point of that experiment was simply to show the greenhouse effect existed, and it did. So what is Frank babbling about? Is he actually under the impression that a little box represents the earth?

No, it wasn't. It was to prove "Gullible Warming"

And we see now the reason they were so cryptic on the amount of CO2 is because is was several orders or magnitude above what you scammers were telling us is "Driving the climate"

 

[Kosh]

The point of that experiment was simply to show the greenhouse effect existed, and it did. So what is Frank babbling about? Is he actually under the impression that a little box represents the earth?

This first in the AGW cult do deny real science and use religious dogma for their stance.

 

[westwall]

The point of that experiment was simply to show the greenhouse effect existed, and it did. So what is Frank babbling about? Is he actually under the impression that a little box represents the earth?

Once again, for the learning impaired....no, it didn't. It demonstrated the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. For a supposed "nucular (sic) watch officer" you sure don't know jack about science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I tired to do a screen shot at 1:37 but couldn't. A screen shot would be most appreciated

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody who buys the whole CO2 mumbo-jumbo has a plate in their head.

 

[mamooth]

Once again, for the learning impaired....no, it didn't. It demonstrated the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. For a supposed "nucular (sic) watch officer" you sure don't know jack about science.

I've asked you over and over to show your numbers, and you've always found excuses not to do so. You don't seem to have the guts to face me.

If you'd like to demonstrate you're not the intellectual lightweight you appear to be, explain exactly how the experiment shows the "Ideal Gas Laws". With detailed calculations. You know, like I did, twice, to demonstrate it showed no such thing.

Also tell us what the "Ideal Gas Laws" are. You keep using that as a plural, so it's not a typo. I thought there was just one Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT, but it looks like we've got a true Einstein here in Westwall, as he knows of other ideal gas laws previously unknown to man.

Also, give us a specific "yes" or "no" answer to another pertinent question you keep dodging, "Does a compressed gas keep generating heat after being compressed?".

 

[mamooth]

I tired to do a screen shot at 1:37 but couldn't. A screen shot would be most appreciated

What's the point? You don't even know what was being measured at that time. For all anyone knows, it was part of the instrument calibration.

Being honest, I say we don't know what the CO2 concentration was during the experiment. Being dishonest, you claim you do know.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, for the learning impaired....no, it didn't. It demonstrated the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. For a supposed "nucular (sic) watch officer" you sure don't know jack about science.

I've asked you over and over to show your numbers, and you've always found excuses not to do so. You don't seem to have the guts to face me.

If you'd like to demonstrate you're not the intellectual lightweight you appear to be, explain exactly how the experiment shows the "Ideal Gas Laws". With detailed calculations. You know, like I did, twice, to demonstrate it showed no such thing.

Also tell us what the "Ideal Gas Laws" are. You keep using that as a plural, so it's not a typo. I thought there was just one Ideal Gas Law, pV=nRT, but it looks like we've got a true Einstein here in Westwall, as he knows of other ideal gas laws previously unknown to man.

Also, give us a specific "yes" or "no" answer to another pertinent question you keep dodging, "Does a compressed gas keep generating heat after being compressed?".

Ol' Walleyes keeps claiming to be a Phd in geology, to be a member of the AGU as well as the Royal Society. And to have proof that the AGW theory is wrong. The AGU has a big meeting in San Francisco every year. Yet Walleyes has yet to present his winning falsification of AGW there. What might be the problem

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I tired to do a screen shot at 1:37 but couldn't. A screen shot would be most appreciated

What's the point? You don't even know what was being measured at that time. For all anyone knows, it was part of the instrument calibration.

Being honest, I say we don't know what the CO2 concentration was during the experiment. Being dishonest, you claim you do know.

I have a PhD in spotting bullshit

 

[skookerasbil]

I tired to do a screen shot at 1:37 but couldn't. A screen shot would be most appreciated

What's the point? You don't even know what was being measured at that time. For all anyone knows, it was part of the instrument calibration.

Being honest, I say we don't know what the CO2 concentration was during the experiment. Being dishonest, you claim you do know.

s0n....do you go to a local drive through for lessons on blowing smoke up peoples asses? Your crap is hail Mary pass shit in 2014. Only the committed far left believe in the whole CO2 hoax.........******* nobody else.


Your shit resonated until people started talking about the MWP, and since then, all the AGW obsessed look like morons. You can make out all you want that the masses buy the CO2 argument but they don't.

Hey....its like Hillary Clinton out yesterday saying in an interview that the "Russian re-set was a big success" and "our efforts in brokering peace in the middle east were largely successful" and "we worked hard to restore America's image all over the globe".

But anybody with half a brain sees the world burning in every corner of the globe.


And funny as shit.....even if the ENTIRE world bought the whole CO2 crap, where would it be mattering?


If CO2 was destroying our world, how come ZERO governments give a rats ass!!!!??????








ZeRo



Do you enjoy me making you look like a dickhead??? Thats ******* creepy dude.........

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



pull up your pants........


With an article or two, you can convince these AGW bozo's that if you throw a stone in the ocean, a gigantic tsunami will emerge.

 

[westwall]

Once again, for the learning impaired....no, it didn't. It demonstrated the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. For a supposed "nucular (sic) watch officer" you sure don't know jack about science.

I've asked you over and over to show your numbers, and you've always found excuses not to do so. You don't seem to have the guts to face me.

If you'd like to demonstrate you're not the intellectual lightweight you appear to be, explain exactly how the experiment shows the "Ideal Gas Laws". With detailed calculations. You know, like I did, twice, to demonstrate it showed no such thing.

Also tell us what the "Ideal Gas Laws" are. You keep using that as a plural, so it's not a typo. I thought there was just one Ideal Gas Law, pV=nRT, but it looks like we've got a true Einstein here in Westwall, as he knows of other ideal gas laws previously unknown to man.

Also, give us a specific "yes" or "no" answer to another pertinent question you keep dodging, "Does a compressed gas keep generating heat after being compressed?".

Ol' Walleyes keeps claiming to be a Phd in geology, to be a member of the AGU as well as the Royal Society. And to have proof that the AGW theory is wrong. The AGU has a big meeting in San Francisco every year. Yet Walleyes has yet to present his winning falsification of AGW there. What might be the problem

I posted my invite to present at the AGU conference a couple of years ago. Where's yours?