Mythbusters CO2 Scam Busted!!

[jc456]

Am I supposed to be impressed? Someone who knows they are behaving like an asshole but chooses not to change is infinitely worse that someone who simply doesn't know. And you'd have had no difficulty convincing us of your ignorance.

Seems like you're referring to yourself. Funny how that can work out eh?

 

[Kosh]

Am I supposed to be impressed? Someone who knows they are behaving like an asshole but chooses not to change is infinitely worse that someone who simply doesn't know. And you'd have had no difficulty convincing us of your ignorance.

Oh! Another looking in the mirror post from the AGW hack that hates real science.

 

[jc456]

right?

BTW, I don't get it, do they think we're gone or something? Same posts over and over, which then means we post the same thing over and over. It would be nice if they learned some new talking points, because rehashing the inability of them producing any evidence is getting rather old, but we are .............................. WiNniNG

 

[IanC]

Just in case anyone's forgotten, the actual theme of this thread, the claim that the Mythbusters attempting to demonstrate the greenhouse effect were forced to raise the CO2 level in their boxes to 7.35% is complete bullshit. The greenhouse effect was demonstrated with 400 ppm of CO2 and 18 ppb of CH4.

This discussion about whether or not Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia AG "persecuted" Michael Mann is a detour designed to take your mind off the complete and desperate failure of this thread's original argument.

Cuccinelli, as you may be aware, attempted to subpoena Mann's emails from the University of Virginia. Unfortunately, judge after judge told him he was full of shit but utterly lacking cause. He didn't get Mann's emails. Then he didn't get elected. Now he's out of work, I guess. That makes me happy as a pig in shit. Cuccinelli is an ass. Anyone who support what he tried to do to Mann is an ass. I hope I'm clear there.

If the CO2 box was 400 ppm and the methane box was 18 ppb then what was in the control boxes?

I do not know for certain - a 5 minute video is not a journal publication and this was much more a demonstration than an experiment. Either no CO2 or 280 ppm CO2.

OK. The boxes don't have feedback mechanisms so the control boxes must have zero CO2 if your numbers are to make any sense at all.

So what was that CO2 graph reading? It started higher and was descending towards 7% when it appeared on camera. What location was it measuring? What was the time period of the graph?

Are you certain that it wasn't the CO2 box it was monitoring? I find it likely that the CO2 box started higher, say 10%, and steadilydecreased due to leakage. The experiment did take hours according to the show. The reading visibly went down even over the few seconds it was onscreen.

Which scenario is more likely? Unmentioned zero CO2 controls and 400 ppm CO2 box. Or ambient atmosphere controls and a >7% CO2 box that was being graphically monitored.

I think you may be taking plausible deniability to new heights.

 

[Crick]

You're ignoring the narrator clearly stating that CO2 levels were set to precisely 400 ppm and methane levels to 18 ppb by the gas monitoring expert, an employee of such-and-such a company. As I stated before, there is simply no chance that gentleman or his employer would have allowed themselves to be used in the manner you suggest. And at no point is it ever suggested that the meter is displaying the CO2 and methane levels used in the experiment. The air surrounding the entire experiment contains 400 ppm CO2. The control chamber's atmosphere would have to have been created from scratch. Given that, it would make perfect sense for the control chamber to have NO known GHGs.