Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The 'Global Warming in a Bottle' Experiment, Done Correctly.

AR- · Guest

Bill Ward wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:58:21 -0500, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:32:48 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4
large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and
used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear
mylar on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than
the control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat
absorbed by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that
the volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However,
gases like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal
gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are
three- and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom,
i.e. infrared energy can be converted more easily into
intra-molecular atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or
heat energy. As a result, these gases (including water as vapor) are
heated up more easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR)
radiation. This conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by
the way is the principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic
ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons
(used for instance in the UV spectroscopy). This â€œabsorbedâ€
energy can be converted partially in kinetic swinging energy
(resulting in heat production) and partially is emitted again as
radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy
idea of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black
background behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The
original light source that passed through the chambers would also
(unless it was of a type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR
should have been involved in this experiment. Though what you maybe
saying, is that the main heating effect (i.e.,much greater than the
contribution from IR) given this experimental set up, was conduction
and convection.

That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far
more effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That>s why most
computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the

1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It>s
still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children
as propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot
be that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one
that>s portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses
to absorb radiation.

It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally
isolate the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive,
cooled IR sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There>s not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of CO2,
it>s the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger effect of
water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2 could have
is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from water make even
that unlikely.

Do you have some addition sources you could point me to so that I could
better understand and evaluate these assertions?

This may get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

I haven>t got the link handy, but Tyndall>s 1865(?) book is available on
Google books. He did some of the original work on gas IR absorption.

Then you might see what a new mid-IR instrument would cost. Perkin
Elmer will give you a quote here:

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/ProductInfoPage.htm?ProductID=L125402A

Are there any assertions in particular that require clarification?

Thanks for the links I have one or two of Tyndall>s articles, but I don>t'
think they go into detail about the instrumentation issues, so I>ll check
these.

But I was more interested in support for your statement that "The only
effect CO2 could have is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks
from water make even that unlikely."
Regards

The troposphere is defined by the fact it>s mixed well enough to maintain
a nearly adiabatic lapse rate. The resulting mass transfer of sensible
heat plus the latent heat of water vapor completely overwhelms radiative
transfer, as you can see by calculating the power density of a rising
column of humid air. Radiation from the surface maxes out at around
500W/m^2, while a good thermal can be 200kW/m^2. Therefore in the
troposphere, 380ppmv of CO2 can have little effect with its assumed
forcing of 1.5W/m^2.

Whether this argument of yours is correct or not, my understanding is[/quote]
that a significant influence of C02 occurs at the higher elevations, the
stratosphere.

This is a minor point right now, but I>ve seen the figure of 324W/m2 not
1.5, as the back radiation for greenhouse gases (my figure is meant to
include all such gases, not just C02). Possibly this includes back
radiation from the stratosphere as well, I>ll have to check on this.

[quote]The effective radiating T of the Earth is about 255K, which corresponds to
altitudes near the top of the troposphere. That is above most of the
atmosphere, so less than half of the CO2 is above that level. In
addition, the 15u absorption band at issue
[/quote]
I hope you can indulge my ignorance, but why are you focusing on such a
narrow band of IR?

is centered well below the
[quote]255K emission peak, leaving most of the radiation out of its reach.

Given those facts, and the stabilizing effect of water on the climate, I>m
not at all convinced that CO2 can have any appreciable effect on surface
temperatures. You may want to read some of my recent posts if you want
more detail.

Thanks for your interest.

snip dead text[/quote]

Bill Ward · Guest

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:45:12 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 3, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you
clearly understand it. The burden of explaining a
theory in a clear, accurate and understandable manner
lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be very
suspicious of those who try to convince you that you
are so stupid you can>t understand their explanation.
That>s just their way of discouraging you from asking
questions they can>t answer without exposing their
ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you.
the "negative feedback from water", for example. i fear
you are treading off in a direction you do not wish to go
in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but
about xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of
popes, ayatollahs and related shamans have pulled the wool
over the eyes of the gullible, so that a self-identified,
"priest class" don>t have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their*
existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his
mind-reading skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh
about walking on water, end-times, making the dead come
alive, rapturous ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the
true sceptic you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups
for that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to
bizarre propositions like " a person once walked on water" "
dead people can spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m
thinking more accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave
judgment on his mind reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but
you opted for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is
outstanding, though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW
in alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism
of the nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the
science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the AGW
hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a matter of
faith,

Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as a
sceptic.

which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the
characteristics of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as
why they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with
religion at some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.

Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity
doesn>t mean I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is
just that, so I>m not an atheist, even though I reject all the
"revealed" tosh from the bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.

John demonstrates his inability to distinguish the difference between
the domains of science and religion.

I see you are dissembling again. I distinguished between them so clearly
only an idiot would not see it. And I don>t believe for one moment you are
an idiot. However, in case you missed it - religion is always bollocks;
science is sometimes so, but temporarily.

Which is OK by me, as long as he doesn>t demand everyone else join him
in his delusions of omniscience.

Now an appeal to pathos...ahahaha. Whatever next ?

Science is not a religion. When people resort to appeals to authority
rather than evidence-based reasoning, it indicates they believe in
things they don>t understand and can>t explain. That "discussion"
belongs in a religious newsgroup, not here. In science, we explain
things, we don>t decree them.

Err...yes. But nobody suggested that science IS a religion. My point was
the opposite in fact - that religious propositions can often be couched in
a form of a scientific hypothesis and tackled in exactly that way.

Here are websites that excel in doing just that:

http://www.randi.org/
http://www.notori.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

Do let me know if you>d like more. Lots of people out there who see very
clearly that religion is bollocks.

But that>s still off topic.

Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple yes/no
questions. They also now know what the answers are. Attempted lying by
omission is still attempted lying, by the way.

John sounds desperate here. Apparently he also suffers from the
delusion that people must obey him.

I didn>t demand you answer, as far as I can see. What are you reading into
my fairly straightforward question that makes you think that? Or is this
more pathos?

or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100%
topical on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW
has been shaken.

The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of human
nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to be
devious when the chips are down.

Again John demonstrates his projection problem. Maybe a 12 step program
would help.

See what I mean about "devious when the chips are down"? I>ve got your
number, Bilbo. Wriggle as much as you like, but my hook always carries a
barb to prevent such an escape.
[/quote]
Think about that - it works both ways. I find your antics rather humorous
and it>s so easy to provoke you into making a fool of yourself. I
probably should be ashamed of myself, but I>m having too much fun.

[quote]AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it
is up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes
those who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for
future global actions.

On that we agree.

So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly, but that doesn>t mean
they won>t succeed tomorrow.

Skeptics succeed by ensuring the facts are well discussed. The AGWers
have been trying to stifle heresy for as long as I>ve been looking at
the issue. That>s primarily why I became interested. When I see a
lucid, credible explanation without all the handwaving and obfuscation,
I might be less skeptical.

Then you are looking in the wrong place. The library of a major
university is where you should be spending your time.
[/quote]
But putting you though your so predictable routine is ever so much more
entertaining, John.

[quote]The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of
some kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and
for all, Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and
think of me enjoying wine, women and song in the company of
Beelzebub as you float heavenwards, along with those thermals you
always wax lyrical about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple
yes/no test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on
your behalf so you can stay on the ground when those "end times"
come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs
and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here
and that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m
sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to
agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((

The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.

You pay attention. It was a multiple choice question of just two
selections. Do I need to add the boxes so you can tick one or the other?
The choice is A./ Yes B./ No.

Are you that embarrassed about your religion you are not prepared to
defend what you think is really true?
[/quote]
Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care what
you think I believe? I>m only interested in what you can explain,
which is zilch so far. All you seem to be able to do is go off topic.
That>s entertaining, perhaps, but hardly useful.

[quote]In this case perhaps you need to
do some heavy thinking about it. You could start with:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Carefully read Feynman>s second paragraph here.
[/quote]
IIRC, I posted that several months ago. Pay attention.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:40:23 -0500, AR- wrote:

[quote]

Bill Ward wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:58:21 -0500, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:32:48 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of
the items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They
made 4 large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to
another, and used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear
mylar on one side onto a black painted surface at the other
side. the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more
ice than the control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can
cause greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do
this correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some
is absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon,
carbon dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat
absorbed by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per
mole of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar
heat capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If
you can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says
that the volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction.
However, gases like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like
an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are
three- and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom,
i.e. infrared energy can be converted more easily into
intra-molecular atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or
heat energy. As a result, these gases (including water as vapor)
are heated up more easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared
(IR) radiation. This conversion of radiation energy to kinetic
energy by the way is the principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher
energetic ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing excitations of
outer electrons (used for instance in the UV spectroscopy). This
â€œabsorbedâ€ energy can be converted partially in kinetic
swinging energy (resulting in heat production) and partially is
emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy
idea of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black
background behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The
original light source that passed through the chambers would also
(unless it was of a type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR
should have been involved in this experiment. Though what you maybe
saying, is that the main heating effect (i.e.,much greater than the
contribution from IR) given this experimental set up, was conduction
and convection.

That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far
more effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That>s why
most computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the

1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source
and detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas.
It>s still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and
thermal properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible
children as propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely
cannot be that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment,
even one that>s portable, which shows the differential ability of
some gasses to absorb radiation.

It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally
isolate the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive,
cooled IR sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There>s not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of
CO2, it>s the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger
effect of water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2
could have is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from
water make even that unlikely.

Do you have some addition sources you could point me to so that I
could better understand and evaluate these assertions?

This may get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

I haven>t got the link handy, but Tyndall>s 1865(?) book is available
on Google books. He did some of the original work on gas IR
absorption.

Then you might see what a new mid-IR instrument would cost. Perkin
Elmer will give you a quote here:

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/ProductInfoPage.htm?ProductID=L125402A

Are there any assertions in particular that require clarification?

Thanks for the links I have one or two of Tyndall>s articles, but I
don>t' think they go into detail about the instrumentation issues, so
I>ll check these.

But I was more interested in support for your statement that "The only
effect CO2 could have is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks
from water make even that unlikely."
Regards

The troposphere is defined by the fact it>s mixed well enough to
maintain a nearly adiabatic lapse rate. The resulting mass transfer of
sensible heat plus the latent heat of water vapor completely overwhelms
radiative transfer, as you can see by calculating the power density of a
rising column of humid air. Radiation from the surface maxes out at
around 500W/m^2, while a good thermal can be 200kW/m^2. Therefore in
the troposphere, 380ppmv of CO2 can have little effect with its assumed
forcing of 1.5W/m^2.

Whether this argument of yours is correct or not, my understanding is that
a significant influence of C02 occurs at the higher elevations, the
stratosphere.
[/quote]
Right. I>m saying that>s about the only place, and the stratosphere is
above most of the atmosphere, so there>s less CO2 to absorb IR.

A month or two ago, I posted my derivation of the 200kW/m^2. You might
want to check and see whether it>s valid.
[quote]
This is a minor point right now, but I>ve seen the figure of 324W/m2 not
1.5, as the back radiation for greenhouse gases (my figure is meant to
include all such gases, not just C02). Possibly this includes back
radiation from the stratosphere as well, I>ll have to check on this.

The effective radiating T of the Earth is about 255K, which corresponds
to altitudes near the top of the troposphere. That is above most of
the atmosphere, so less than half of the CO2 is above that level. In
addition, the 15u absorption band at issue

I hope you can indulge my ignorance, but why are you focusing on such a
narrow band of IR?
[/quote]
I>m glad you asked, and I>m happy to try to explain. CO2, like other
gases, absorbs in narrow regions of the spectrum because it can only
absorb or emit energies that correspond to the different modes of
oscillation of its component atoms. The one of interest for CO2 is at 15u.
See Fig 4 at this link:

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

Then look at this graph:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

The red curve on the top left represents incoming solar energy, and the
purple, blue, and black ones on the right represent outgoing IR emissions,
at 310K, 260K, and 210K. They all share the same horizontal wavelength
axis. The height corresponds to the intensity.

The first horizontal gray graph represents total absorption in the
atmosphere, the second is the absorption spectrum for water, and the third
is the CO2 absorption spectrum. The higher the gray part, the more
absorption.

The Earth>s effective radiation temperature has been measured by satellite
to be 255K. If you look at the outgoing 260K radiation (blue) curve,
relative to the rightmost (15u) CO2 absorption band, you>ll note the CO2
is well to the right of the blue emissions peak, and in the graph just
above it, can be seen to also be partially blocked by water vapor. The
result is that only a thin slice of that 15u CO2 band could be active.

The remaining three smaller CO2 absorption bands to the left are out of
play because they are outside (in between) both the incoming solar energy
and outgoing IR emission spectra, so there>s no radiation to absorb.

Does that clarify it for you? If not, just tell me what>s missing and
I>ll try to fill it in.

[quote]is centered well below the
255K emission peak, leaving most of the radiation out of its reach.

Given those facts, and the stabilizing effect of water on the climate,
I>m not at all convinced that CO2 can have any appreciable effect on
surface temperatures. You may want to read some of my recent posts if
you want more detail.

Thanks for your interest.

snip dead text[/quote]

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 10:59 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:45:12 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you
clearly understand it. The burden of explaining a
theory in a clear, accurate and understandable manner
lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be very
suspicious of those who try to convince you that you
are so stupid you can>t understand their explanation.
That>s just their way of discouraging you from asking
questions they can>t answer without exposing their
ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you.
the "negative feedback from water", for example. i fear
you are treading off in a direction you do not wish to go
in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but
about xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of
popes, ayatollahs and related shamans have pulled the wool
over the eyes of the gullible, so that a self-identified,
"priest class" don>t have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their*
existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his
mind-reading skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh
about walking on water, end-times, making the dead come
alive, rapturous ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the
true sceptic you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups
for that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to
bizarre propositions like " a person once walked on water" "
dead people can spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m
thinking more accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave
judgment on his mind reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but
you opted for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is
outstanding, though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW
in alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism
of the nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the
science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the AGW
hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a matter of
faith,

Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as a
sceptic.

which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the
characteristics of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as
why they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with
religion at some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.

Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity
doesn>t mean I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is
just that, so I>m not an atheist, even though I reject all the
"revealed" tosh from the bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.

John demonstrates his inability to distinguish the difference between
the domains of science and religion.

I see you are dissembling again. I distinguished between them so clearly
only an idiot would not see it. And I don>t believe for one moment you are
an idiot. However, in case you missed it - religion is always bollocks;
science is sometimes so, but temporarily.

Which is OK by me, as long as he doesn>t demand everyone else join him
in his delusions of omniscience.

Now an appeal to pathos...ahahaha. Whatever next ?

Science is not a religion. When people resort to appeals to authority
rather than evidence-based reasoning, it indicates they believe in
things they don>t understand and can>t explain. That "discussion"
belongs in a religious newsgroup, not here. In science, we explain
things, we don>t decree them.

Err...yes. But nobody suggested that science IS a religion. My point was
the opposite in fact - that religious propositions can often be couched in
a form of a scientific hypothesis and tackled in exactly that way.

Here are websites that excel in doing just that:

http://www.randi.org/
http://www.notori.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

Do let me know if you>d like more. Lots of people out there who see very
clearly that religion is bollocks.

But that>s still off topic.

Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple yes/no
questions. They also now know what the answers are. Attempted lying by
omission is still attempted lying, by the way.

John sounds desperate here. Apparently he also suffers from the
delusion that people must obey him.

I didn>t demand you answer, as far as I can see. What are you reading into
my fairly straightforward question that makes you think that? Or is this
more pathos?

or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100%
topical on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW
has been shaken.

The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of human
nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to be
devious when the chips are down.

Again John demonstrates his projection problem. Maybe a 12 step program
would help.

See what I mean about "devious when the chips are down"? I>ve got your
number, Bilbo. Wriggle as much as you like, but my hook always carries a
barb to prevent such an escape.

Think about that - it works both ways. I find your antics rather humorous
and it>s so easy to provoke you into making a fool of yourself. I
probably should be ashamed of myself, but I>m having too much fun.

AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it
is up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes
those who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for
future global actions.

On that we agree.

So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly, but that doesn>t mean
they won>t succeed tomorrow.

Skeptics succeed by ensuring the facts are well discussed. The AGWers
have been trying to stifle heresy for as long as I>ve been looking at
the issue. That>s primarily why I became interested. When I see a
lucid, credible explanation without all the handwaving and obfuscation,
I might be less skeptical.

Then you are looking in the wrong place. The library of a major
university is where you should be spending your time.

But putting you though your so predictable routine is ever so much more
entertaining, John.

The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of
some kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and
for all, Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and
think of me enjoying wine, women and song in the company of
Beelzebub as you float heavenwards, along with those thermals you
always wax lyrical about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple
yes/no test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on
your behalf so you can stay on the ground when those "end times"
come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs
and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here
and that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m
sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to
agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((

The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.

You pay attention. It was a multiple choice question of just two
selections. Do I need to add the boxes so you can tick one or the other?
The choice is A./ Yes B./ No.

Are you that embarrassed about your religion you are not prepared to
defend what you think is really true?

Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care what
you ...
[/quote]
This is Usenet. It is just possible that somebody else, other than you
and me, is reading what is written here. Unlikely, but possible. And
now they finally know how much your scepticism is worth. Exactly zippo.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 4, 4:29 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:46:24 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:59 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:45:12 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
[/quote]
<big snip of everything Bilbo found so embarrassing he ignored it
rather than respond>

[quote]How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24
hrs and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that
person spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here
and that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was?
I>m sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you
have to agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((

The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.

You pay attention. It was a multiple choice question of just two
selections. Do I need to add the boxes so you can tick one or the
other? The choice is A./ Yes B./ No.

Are you that embarrassed about your religion you are not prepared to
defend what you think is really true?

Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care
what you ...

There you go with your snipping again.
[/quote]
Not me. Google trimmed it without my noticing. Not that it was
anything worth a response, though.

[quote]But that>s OK, it just highlights what you couldn>t respond to:
[/quote]
In order to reduce this to a manageable size, I>ve deliberately
snipped everything you couldn>t respond to. That must come as some
relief to you, eh?

[quote]begin repost

Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care
what you think I believe? I>m only interested in what you can explain,
which is zilch so far.
[/quote]
I explained very succinctly why you are a complete ass, but as this
was patently obvious from the (non-technical parts of) messages you
posted, it was hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

N.B. I must be honest and say that I find your theoretical analyses of
atmosphere interesting but ultimately futile. Empiricism is what is
needed in the case of a system you have many times noted as "chaotic".

All you seem to be able to do is go off topic.
[quote]That>s entertaining, perhaps, but hardly useful.

In this case perhaps you need to
do some heavy thinking about it. You could start with:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Carefully read Feynman>s second paragraph here.

IIRC, I posted that several months ago. Pay attention.
[/quote]
Gosh. Several months. What a powerful memory you have - residing in a
brain incapable of even remotely comprehending what Feynman was
telling us. Did you even bother to read it before posting it last time
around?

[quote]end repost

[Back to John]

This is Usenet. It is just possible that somebody else, other than you and
me, is reading what is written here. Unlikely, but possible. And now they
finally know how much your scepticism is worth. Exactly zippo.

First I>m a denier, now I>m not skeptical enough to suit you.
[/quote]
You can>t even manage reading comprehension of simple English grammar.
I didn>t say your scepticism was zippo, I said that was what it was
worth - all gazillion or so messages of yours denying AGW here on
alt.g-w.

There>s
[quote]just no pleasing some people...
[/quote]
If you want to please the entire ng, try answering that multi-choice
Q. I posed above.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:46:24 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 3, 10:59 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:45:12 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you
clearly understand it. The burden of explaining a
theory in a clear, accurate and understandable
manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics.
Be very suspicious of those who try to convince you
that you are so stupid you can>t understand their
explanation. That>s just their way of discouraging
you from asking questions they can>t answer without
exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand
you. the "negative feedback from water", for example.
i fear you are treading off in a direction you do not
wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but
about xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of
popes, ayatollahs and related shamans have pulled the
wool over the eyes of the gullible, so that a
self-identified, "priest class" don>t have to work, and
can have their wicked way with children. He appears to
support *their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his
mind-reading skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious
tosh about walking on water, end-times, making the dead
come alive, rapturous ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like
the true sceptic you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong
newsgroups for that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to
bizarre propositions like " a person once walked on water" "
dead people can spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m
thinking more accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave
judgment on his mind reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but
you opted for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is
outstanding, though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against
AGW in alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed
scepticism of the nay sayers. Are they really questioning
fundamentals of the science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the
AGW hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a
matter of faith,

Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as
a sceptic.

which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the
characteristics of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much
as why they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with
religion at some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.

Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity
doesn>t mean I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is
just that, so I>m not an atheist, even though I reject all the
"revealed" tosh from the bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.

John demonstrates his inability to distinguish the difference between
the domains of science and religion.

I see you are dissembling again. I distinguished between them so
clearly only an idiot would not see it. And I don>t believe for one
moment you are an idiot. However, in case you missed it - religion is
always bollocks; science is sometimes so, but temporarily.

Which is OK by me, as long as he doesn>t demand everyone else join
him in his delusions of omniscience.

Now an appeal to pathos...ahahaha. Whatever next ?

Science is not a religion. When people resort to appeals to
authority rather than evidence-based reasoning, it indicates they
believe in things they don>t understand and can>t explain. That
"discussion" belongs in a religious newsgroup, not here. In science,
we explain things, we don>t decree them.

Err...yes. But nobody suggested that science IS a religion. My point
was the opposite in fact - that religious propositions can often be
couched in a form of a scientific hypothesis and tackled in exactly
that way.

Here are websites that excel in doing just that:

http://www.randi.org/
http://www.notori.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

Do let me know if you>d like more. Lots of people out there who see
very clearly that religion is bollocks.

But that>s still off topic.

Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple
yes/no questions. They also now know what the answers are.
Attempted lying by omission is still attempted lying, by the way.

John sounds desperate here. Apparently he also suffers from the
delusion that people must obey him.

I didn>t demand you answer, as far as I can see. What are you reading
into my fairly straightforward question that makes you think that? Or
is this more pathos?

or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100%
topical on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW
has been shaken.

The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of
human nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to
be devious when the chips are down.

Again John demonstrates his projection problem. Maybe a 12 step
program would help.

See what I mean about "devious when the chips are down"? I>ve got your
number, Bilbo. Wriggle as much as you like, but my hook always carries
a barb to prevent such an escape.

Think about that - it works both ways. I find your antics rather
humorous and it>s so easy to provoke you into making a fool of yourself.
I probably should be ashamed of myself, but I>m having too much fun.

AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such,
it is up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that
includes those who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a
rationale for future global actions.

On that we agree.

So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly, but that doesn>t
mean they won>t succeed tomorrow.

Skeptics succeed by ensuring the facts are well discussed. The
AGWers have been trying to stifle heresy for as long as I>ve been
looking at the issue. That>s primarily why I became interested.
When I see a lucid, credible explanation without all the handwaving
and obfuscation, I might be less skeptical.

Then you are looking in the wrong place. The library of a major
university is where you should be spending your time.

But putting you though your so predictable routine is ever so much more
entertaining, John.

The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of
some kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and
for all, Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture",
and think of me enjoying wine, women and song in the company of
Beelzebub as you float heavenwards, along with those thermals
you always wax lyrical about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple
yes/no test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene
on your behalf so you can stay on the ground when those "end
times" come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24
hrs and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that
person spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here
and that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was?
I>m sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you
have to agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((

The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.

You pay attention. It was a multiple choice question of just two
selections. Do I need to add the boxes so you can tick one or the
other? The choice is A./ Yes B./ No.

Are you that embarrassed about your religion you are not prepared to
defend what you think is really true?

Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care
what you ...
[/quote]
There you go with your snipping again. But that>s OK, it just highlights
what you couldn>t respond to:

<begin repost>

Why would I bother to do that for you? What gave you the idea I care
what you think I believe? I>m only interested in what you can explain,
which is zilch so far. All you seem to be able to do is go off topic.
That>s entertaining, perhaps, but hardly useful.

[quote]In this case perhaps you need to
do some heavy thinking about it. You could start with:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Carefully read Feynman>s second paragraph here.
[/quote]
IIRC, I posted that several months ago. Pay attention.

<end repost>

[Back to John]
[quote]This is Usenet. It is just possible that somebody else, other than you and
me, is reading what is written here. Unlikely, but possible. And now they
finally know how much your scepticism is worth. Exactly zippo.
[/quote]
First I>m a denier, now I>m not skeptical enough to suit you. There>s
just no pleasing some people...

Benj · Guest

On Nov 3, 3:07 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]Try looking at the Venus atmosphere. Put quite simply, CO2 does it.
[/quote]
Try explaining what kind of SUVs and power plants are causing "global
warming" as measured on the other planets in our system.

Moron.

[quote]Second hint: If CO2 cannot have

enough of an effect to create "global warming" then the term
"anthropogenic" [means man-caused] is nothing but a blatant lie for
political purposes.

Luckily CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. Saves the politicos from
getting egg on their faces.
[/quote]
But doesn>t make them correct give that it doesn>t trap ENOUGH heat to
matter.

You AND they are idiots.

[quote]Third hint: If AGW is a lie then teaching such

crap to school children as "truth" is blatant propaganda and is
shameful.

Luckily only religion is taught as truth to school children. Science
is taught as a way of discovering how religious truth is bollocks.
Obviously better science teaching is needed in many places.
[/quote]
So far as I can see only atheism is taught as truth to school
children. You know, that idea that God is dead and everything happens
in the world by chance and that morality and ethics is some fairy
tale. You know, the rules that YOU live by. Leftists are always
working hard to have atheism as a state religion. AH. The good old
days in the USSR!

John M. · Guest

On Nov 5, 1:48 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 3:07 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
important context restored
Ummm. In politics quantity doesn>t matter. Example: one puts in place
conditions for genocide of millions based upon argument "if one child
is saved it>s worth it". In science quantity matters. Hence the
question is not one of if CO2 IR bands actually absorb some energy,
the question is if CO2 can possibly have ENOUGH of an effect to create
"global warming". Hint: it can>t.

Try looking at the Venus atmosphere. Put quite simply, CO2 does it.

Try explaining what kind of SUVs and power plants are causing "global
warming" as measured on the other planets in our system.
[/quote]
This form of argumentation is called "erecting a straw man". It>s
famous as a tactic of last resort.

[quote]Moron.
[/quote]
Nice, sig. And as you have put it in the middle of your post, instead
of at the end, it>s very descriptive of you, too

[quote]Second hint: If CO2 cannot have

enough of an effect to create "global warming" then the term
"anthropogenic" [means man-caused] is nothing but a blatant lie for
political purposes.

Luckily CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. Saves the politicos from
getting egg on their faces.

But doesn>t make them correct give that it doesn>t trap ENOUGH heat to
matter.
[/quote]
How much would that be exactly, the amount that WOULD matter, and why
would it matter?

[quote]You AND they are idiots.

Third hint: If AGW is a lie then teaching such

crap to school children as "truth" is blatant propaganda and is
shameful.

Luckily only religion is taught as truth to school children. Science
is taught as a way of discovering how religious truth is bollocks.
Obviously better science teaching is needed in many places.

So far as I can see only atheism is taught as truth to school
children.
[/quote]
Never heard of madrassahs? Never come across faith schools? What a
sheltered life you>ve led

[quote]You know, that idea that God is dead
[/quote]
How can this invisible sky pixie be dead if she never existed in the
first place. Do try to keep up.

[quote]and everything happens
in the world by chance and that morality and ethics is some fairy
tale.
[/quote]
Interesting non-sequitur. Care to drivel some more, as we all love a
good giggle on alt.g-w.

[quote]You know, the rules that YOU live by. Leftists are always
working hard to have atheism as a state religion.
[/quote]
Do tell. I>ve never heard that one.

AH. The good old
[quote]days in the USSR!
[/quote]
So you escaped from a Gulag, did you. No wonder you have a chip on
your shoulder and sweetie mice in your brains...

Benj · Guest

On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]Try explaining what kind of SUVs and power plants are causing "global
warming" as measured on the other planets in our system.

This form of argumentation is called "erecting a straw man". It>s
famous as a tactic of last resort.
[/quote]
And your explanation of planetary "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is?
Right. Name calling.
That form of argumentation is called "ad hominem attack". It>s Latin
meaning "to the man" which describes calling the man names rather than
responding to any of his points. It>s a standard tactic of the Loony
Left as well as "debunker" shills such as yourself.

[quote]Moron.

Nice, sig. And as you have put it in the middle of your post, instead
of at the end, it>s very descriptive of you, too
[/quote]
Ad Hominem. Yawn.

[quote]
Luckily CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. Saves the politicos from
getting egg on their faces.

But doesn>t make them correct given that it doesn>t trap ENOUGH heat to
matter.

How much would that be exactly, the amount that WOULD matter, and why
would it matter?
[/quote]
As I said before. These "debunking shills" have NO idea that quantity
matters. Did your woman tell you that size doesn>t matter? She is
lying to you.

[quote]So far as I can see only atheism is taught as truth to school
children.

Never heard of madrassahs? Never come across faith schools? What a
sheltered life you>ve led
[/quote]
Talking about public (as in U.S. terminology) schools, not private
ones.

[quote]You know, the rules that YOU live by. Leftists are always
working hard to have atheism as a state religion.

Do tell. I>ve never heard that one.
[/quote]
How can that be? Don>t you spend your days and nights dreaming of that
day when the USSR will wake up and be the envy of the world again?

Marxist Atheists! All they do is spew slogans and try to set
themselves up as dictators. (for the good of all "workers", of
course) You really do need to grow a brain.

Al Bedo · Guest

Roger Coppock wrote:
[quote]The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a
"Young Scientists Special." It aired on
4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse
gas theory. They made 4 large rectangular
chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another,
and used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer
and melted more ice than the control groups.
They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Great. When you move into a rectangular chamber
full of CO2, you can panic about warming.

Here on earth, not much of a problem.

--
-

When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?

Tunderbar · Guest

On Oct 30, 7:45 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a
"Young Scientists Special." It aired on
4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse
gas theory. They made 4 large rectangular
chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another,
and used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer
and melted more ice than the control groups.
They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration
to see how to do this correctly. He>s failed too
many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This
episode is probably also available on DVD.
Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/
[/quote]
Errr... the atmosphere is not a closed box with a black painted
interior and a mylar cover.......

Apples and baseballs. Not even close to apples and oranges. You should
know better than that.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 6, 8:51 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[/quote]
I see you don>t like to make nonsensical comments in the light of the
point about which you are commenting, so I>ll put it back yet again.
<important context restored>
[quote]Ummm. In politics quantity doesn>t matter. Example: one puts in place
conditions for genocide of millions based upon argument "if one child
is saved it>s worth it". In science quantity matters. Hence the
question is not one of if CO2 IR bands actually absorb some energy,
the question is if CO2 can possibly have ENOUGH of an effect to create
"global warming". Hint: it can>t.

Try looking at the Venus atmosphere. Put quite simply, CO2 does it.
end of restoration of context

Try explaining what kind of SUVs and power plants are causing "global
warming" as measured on the other planets in our system.

This form of argumentation is called "erecting a straw man". It>s
famous as a tactic of last resort.

And your explanation of planetary "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is?
Right. Name calling.
[/quote]
Excuse me. What name did I call you? Perhaps you snipped it
accidentally when you were taking out a bit that firmly puts egg on
your face. I>ve restored it for the second time.

[quote]That form of argumentation is called "ad hominem attack". It>s Latin
meaning "to the man" which describes calling the man names rather than
responding to any of his points. It>s a standard tactic of the Loony
Left as well as "debunker" shills such as yourself.
[/quote]
Wow. A new straw man to sidestep the accusation of creating a straw
man. Very ingenious. Full marks. Shows more talent than your blatant
snipping of context.<sarcasm>

[quote]Moron.

Nice, sig. And as you have put it in the middle of your post, instead
of at the end, it>s very descriptive of you, too

Ad Hominem. Yawn.
[/quote]
It>s sardonic irony, in fact. An ad hominem occurs during argument as
a distraction from a valid point. You had no valid point - ergo, there
can be no ad hominem. Readers also need to check back to see how you
have snipped the post of it>s most important context

[quote]Luckily CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. Saves the politicos from
getting egg on their faces.

But doesn>t make them correct given that it doesn>t trap ENOUGH heat to
matter.
How much would that be exactly, the amount that WOULD matter, and why
would it matter?

As I said before. These "debunking shills" have NO idea that quantity
matters.
[/quote]
So you haven>t a clue about any of this, have you? Just like you
haven>t with the solubility of gases (see below). Readers also need to
check back to see how you have snipped the post of it>s most important
context

[quote]Did your woman tell you that size doesn>t matter? She is
lying to you.
[/quote]
If it can fit Sarah Palin>s laughing tackle should the occasion arise,
I guess it>s small enough not to miss out.

[quote]So far as I can see only atheism is taught as truth to school
children.

Never heard of madrassahs? Never come across faith schools? What a
sheltered life you>ve led

Talking about public (as in U.S. terminology) schools, not private
ones.
[/quote]
OK. Never heard of government-funded madrassahs and faith schools?
What a sheltered life you>ve led. Still, now you have a liberal,
socialist president, you>ll soon be able to get low-cost or even free
medical attention for your attention deficit disorder.

[quote]You know, the rules that YOU live by. Leftists are always
working hard to have atheism as a state religion.

Do tell. I>ve never heard that one.

How can that be? Don>t you spend your days and nights dreaming of that
day when the USSR will wake up and be the envy of the world again?
[/quote]
Err, no. I dream about getting a blow job from Sarah Palin, just like
you and Hannity.

[quote]Marxist Atheists! All they do is spew slogans and try to set
themselves up as dictators. (for the good of all "workers", of
course) You really do need to grow a brain.
[/quote]
Isn>t that one of those ad hominems you so abhor <sarcasm>

By the way, I note you didn>t answer the following from further up the
thread:

<start of transferred script>
[quote]It is a shameful thing when doofuses of the highest order pretend to
be scientists here.

OK, Mr. Scientist. Does warm water hold more or less CO2 than cold
water? You may refer to that half empty coke bottle up your ass for
help answering. Shameful!
[/quote]
Ahahaha... so you believe there is a contradiction between warmer
oceans that are also holding more CO2 than before and the reduced
solubility of gases with increase in temperature. You brainless twit.

I expect Lloyd would>ve answered, but for the fact that he is
doubtless ROFL over your post and can>t get to the computer.
<end of transferred script>

Wanna have a stab at it now. I>m a bit down and could do with a
giggle. Readers also need to check back to see how you have snipped
the post of it>s most important context.

Ouroboros_Rex · Guest

Al Bedo wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a
"Young Scientists Special." It aired on
4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse
gas theory. They made 4 large rectangular
chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another,
and used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer
and melted more ice than the control groups.
They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Great. When you move into a rectangular chamber
full of CO2, you can panic about warming.

Here on earth, not much of a problem.
[/quote]
The usual deniualist lie. yawn

John M. · Guest

[quote]'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here
and that you will be "raptured"?
[/quote]
I guess the group has to take that as a 'yes'. Anyone not believing in
such tosh would answer 'no' with some alacrity, wouldn>t they.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 6, 7:52 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 8:51 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

I see you don>t like to make nonsensical comments in the light of the
point about which you are commenting, so I>ll put it back yet again.
important context restored

Ummm. In politics quantity doesn>t matter. Example: one puts in place
conditions for genocide of millions based upon argument "if one child
is saved it>s worth it". In science quantity matters. Hence the
question is not one of if CO2 IR bands actually absorb some energy,
the question is if CO2 can possibly have ENOUGH of an effect to create
"global warming". Hint: it can>t.
Try looking at the Venus atmosphere. Put quite simply,


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com