How the bastards do it

**Everyone reading this thread.

Let's see your science.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

ROFL. Sums your religious scientific diatribe up beautifully. There is scientific data and then there is dammed scientific data and "throw that one away it doesn't match the data we need" data.

Hint in the 101 class. Look up "scientific management"

**It's not religion. That's for idiots who undestand nothing about science. OTOH, here are some experiments I located in about 5 minutes:

There is

**Sure. And yet, despite my continued references to real science, you have managed to present nothing, except a typo (whilst, I might add, inserting your own typo in the same post!). **Thus far, you've demonstrated ZERO abilty to comprehend science. You present no science to back your religious claims. Nothing. Not a single shred of evidence. Why should anyone pay attention to you?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--

---

Every spelling flame...

--
?? 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net

follow the money.

--
?? 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net

china builds world largest UPS

--
?? 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net

Lol, Science is a method, not facts.

OTOH, here are some experiments I located in about 5

Quote from above link " C1 The left hand side glass vessel is filled with pure carbon dioxide. C2 The right hand side vessel is filled with normal air containing only about

0,037% of carbon dioxide. Therefore the absorbing effect of CO2 is by far stronger in the left vessel and the capability to act as greenhouse gas can be estimated through this experimental setup. "

Now how can you get any sensible result when comparing C1 and C2 when the difference in CO2 concentration is 2,702 ???? What relevance does that have to the projected changes in CO2 in the atmosphere ?

These two links are about the same 'experiment' done by mythbusters. The first question is what were the actual levels of CO2 and methane ???? It is not mentioned in the video, only that they could measure accurately.

The second link also contains this criticism of the experiment:

"HoosierHawk says: The greenhouse experiment was very poorly designed, it was similiar to the "greenhouse in a bottle" experiments, two important controls are missing. 1st the glass used must be be transparent to all wavelengths of radiated light (IR) to avoid heating the glass, which leads conductive heating of the interior (heavy gases are more effective at conductive transfer). 2nd and more important, the containers can't be sealed, there needs to be a pressure relief valve to maintain constant pressure. Because CO2 and methane are much heavier than air, the same temp will result in a higher pressure within the vessel. The higher pressure results in compression heating via the ideal gas law PV=nrT. The increase in temp is primarily due to the pressure rather than the IR absorbtion of the gases. That said, CO2 and Methane do absorb IR, but the experiment drastically distorts the effect."

All of the CO2-in-a-bottle type experiments are so divorced from reality that they are useless.

You don't and never have provided any real proof. You also don't listen

**Turnbull is rich. Turnbull seems to understand science.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Yeah, the irony. I thought I pick every post he made a blunder in, but then I realised it was all of them. I'll let him wallow in his own hypocrisy.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

It's traditional.

**No. It's pedantic hypocrisy.

BTW: I will cease reminding you of your hypocrisy as soon as you acknowledge it.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Turnbull is also associated with big banks - the ones who are right into AGW, and stand to profit enormously from it.

Well, I managed to listen to Alan Jones today.

Have to agree with him.

kreed wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Me too, from the bit I heard. Maybe I'll do some more research for my own edification.

Now I know what makes Trevor hot under the collar about Jones, he is giving voice to opposing views which his mob does not seem to like. just watch the reply, Carter is a charlatan etc.

**Carter is an exellent marine geologist. He is not a climatologist. Carter is paid by Exxon.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au