Two Theories

[elektra]

do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,

Equipment and Materials
•A large glass vessel. We have found that a one gallon jar is satisfactory. These can usually be obtained from a restaurant or other food service facility. A small aquarium could also be used.
•A small glass vessel. A beaker or even a drinking glass will be satisfactory, assuming it will fit in the large glass vessel
•A laboratory thermometer
•A heat lamp or equivalent
•Aluminum foil
•Alka-Seltzer tablets
•A balance capable of measuring to the nearest milligram (0.001 gm). If not available, measuring to the nearest 0.01 gm will suffice.
•A watch capable of measuring in seconds
•Graph paper



Procedure

You will treat the air in the large glass vessel as a model of the atmosphere. The vessel will be covered and heated by the "sun" (the heat lamp) until the temperature rises to 15 degrees C above the ambient (surrounding) temperature. The heat lamp is then turned off ("nighttime"), and the air allowed to cool naturally. Temperature readings are taken at definite time intervals and plotted on graph paper. This will show the rate of heat loss from "normal" air. Then, the CO2 concentration of the air will be increased and the experiment repeated. The results will demonstrate the effects of increased CO2 on the rate of heat loss from air. You will then evaluate claims that increasing carbon dioxide will significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus lead to climate change, in your lifetime.


PART A: DETERMINING CO2 CONCENTRATIONS

When Alka-Seltzer dissolves in water, a gas is released. This gas is CO2, so Alka-Seltzer tablets serve as a convenient source of this gas. The determination of the amount of CO2 released is an interesting laboratory procedure in itself, and we recommend that high school students be involved in this portion of the experiment .

The first step is to determine the volume of the glass vessel. If a gallon jar is used, use the conversion factor

1 gallon = 3.785 liters.

If some other sized vessel, such as an aquarium, is used its volume can be measured by filling with water using a pint jar as a measuring vessel. The relationship of

1 gallon = 8 pints

can be combined with the conversion factor above to calculate the volume of the vessel in liters. The remainder of this procedure will be described assuming you use a gallon jar.

The next step is to calculate the mass of the air in the vessel. The true density of air is dependent on the amount of moisture present in the air (the humidity) and on the barometric pressure. There are tables and equations which allow a precise computation of the density of air under any set of conditions. These tables can be found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. This calculation is rather complicated; thus for the purposes of this demonstration/experiment, the density of dry air at a pressure of 760 mm of Hg will be assumed. This density is:


0.0012 gm/milliliter.

Since there are 1000 milliliters in 1 liter, the gallon jar contains

3.785 liters X (1000 milliliters/liter) = 3785 milliliters.

The mass of air in the jar can be calculated from the density:

3785 milliliters X (0.0012 gm/milliliter) = 4.542 gm

At this point, assume you wish to determine the rate of heat loss from an atmosphere in which the CO2 concentration has doubled, e.g. which contains 700 ppm CO2. The air in the gallon jar should contain:

4.542 grams X (700/1,000,000) = 0.0032 gm CO2

Thus, we will need to add an additional 0.0016 gm of CO2 to the air in the vessel.

The CO2 will be obtained from the solution of Alka-Seltzer in water. We have performed the following simple test to determine how much CO2 is released from an Alka-Seltzer tablet:
1.A glass vessel containing 75 milliliters of water is weighed to the nearest milligram.
2.An Alka-Seltzer tablet is weighed to the nearest milligram.
3.The tablet is dropped into the water and allowed to dissolve.
4.After 10 minutes, the vessel, water and dissolved Alka-Seltzer is reweighed.
5.The initial weight of the vessel plus water is added to the weight of the Alka-Seltzer tablet (Add values from steps 1 and 2). Then the weight of the vessel, water and dissolved Alka-Seltzer is subtracted from this sum (Subtract value of step 4 from the sum of 1 and 2). The difference is the weight of the CO2 that was released from the Alka-Seltzer.

A typical determination gave the following values:


Weight of vessel plus water 122.37 gm
Weight of Alka-Seltzer tablet 3.35 gm
Total weight 125.72 gm
Weight of vessel, water, and Alka-Seltzer 125.09 gm
Weight of CO2 released 0.63 gm


This information can now be used to determine the amount of Alka-Seltzer necessary to give the 0.0016 gm of CO2 which must be added to the air in the jar to give a concentration of 700 ppm CO2:

(3.25 gm Alka-Seltzer/0.63 gm CO2) X 0.0016 gm CO2

= 0.0083 gm Alka-Seltzer

This is equal to only 0.25% of one Alka-Seltzer tablet (a quarter of 1%); this is a very small amount.


PART B: EFFECT OF CO2 CONCENTRATION ON HEAT LOSS OF AIR

I. Measurement of heat loss for today's "normal" air:
1.Place the small glass vessel filled with water along with the thermometer in the gallon jar and cover the jar loosely with aluminum foil.

2.Heat the air in the jar using the heat lamp "sun" until the temperature is raised by 15 degrees C.

3.Remove the heat lamps to simulate "night". Record the temperature each minute until the temperature returns to ambient.

4.Using graph paper, plot temperature on the Y-axis versus elapsed cooling time on the X-axis.


II. Measurement of heat loss from tomorrow's air containing increased CO2:
1.Crush up an Alka-Seltzer tablet and weigh out the amount needed to increase the CO2 concentration to the desired value. Remember, this will be a very small amount of Alka-Seltzer.

2.Drop the Alka-Seltzer into the water in the small glass vessel inside the large jar. Immediately cover loosely with foil.

3.Allow 10 minutes for all of the CO2 to be released.

4.Repeat steps I-2, I-3, and I-4 above. Plot your results on the same piece of graph paper as above.


Interpretation of your results:

Using the outcome of your experiment, answer the following questions.
1.Which stayed warm longer, the "normal" air, or the air with increased CO2? After cooling for five minutes, what was the difference in their temperatures?

2.Did increasing the CO2 content increase the heat capacity of the air in the jar?

3.Does this experiment indicate that increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere would cause the climate to get warmer?

4.Explain your answer to question number 3.

Uh, Alka Seltzer? Who's idiotic idea is that, a person who is not a Scientist.

1. If the person who came up with this had even a basic knowledge of Science, like a 1st grade level of Science they would use sodium hydrogen carbonate and acetic acid as the source of CO2.

2. The use of a heat lamp destroys the validity of the experiment. The claim is cosmic radiation causes the C02 in the atmosphere to vibrate thus giving off heat. Cosmic radiation striking/colliding with CO2 is claimed to be sufficient enough to raise the temperature by 1 degree thus this will be easily demonstrated, if true, factual.

3. Unless I missed something, you need two of everything except the source of CO2, you would need a second atmosphere, a "control atmosphere", with less CO2, like 280 ppm or less.

Of course bottles full of gas are about the same as the Global Warming Activists, irrelevant as far as the science goes.

The use of Alka Seltzer by these Scientists is a trick, Alka Seltzer must be dissolved in WATER, with all that bubbling and fizzing going on the contained atmosphere will increase in humidity, H2O. You will thus be measuring the effect of a heat lamp on water.

H2O, the heat lamp will cause the humidity to be higher, longer.

It is a settled science that H2O has the greatest effect on our earth's temperature, that is why Alka Seltzer and Water is used, it increases both.

This experiment does prove two things

1. Idiots are easily fooled.

2. Scientists are liars

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Einstein used a thought experiment to demonstrate that gravity could bend light, the proof had to wait 60 years after. Until then, no genuine scientist ever claimed the "Science was settled" or there was "Consensus"

Where's the Warmers proof, why are they jumping to consensus?

 

[IanC]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

you are the one who is confused. CO2 retards longwave radiation, not solar shortwave.

if anything CO2 increases evaporation at the surface boundary which causes clouds to form earlier in the day which then increases the albedo and therefore increases the solar shortwave that escapes. the CERES data would seem to agree that SW has replaced LW to a small extent at the top of the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Einstein used a thought experiment to demonstrate that gravity could bend light, the proof had to wait 60 years after. Until then, no genuine scientist ever claimed the "Science was settled" or there was "Consensus"

Where's the Warmers proof, why are they jumping to consensus?

actually Einstein's theory was proved by Eddington in the early 30's when he made accurate measurements during a solar eclipse. the experiment was pepared well in advance, specifically to prove one way or the other if Einstein was right. he was, and it made the front headlines in many newspapers.

 

[polarbear]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

So my suspicion is that they've tried these tests and it fails their Theory, that's why they never ever show the results

that is my belief as well. failed experiments are supposed to be available as well but in climate science there is a bias "not to give fodder to the skeptics", so negative or equivical results get put in the round filing cabinet. the recent refusal to publish that Scandinavian's critique of climate sensitivities is a case in point.

You nailed it!
Case in point is what just happened to Lennart Bengtsson.

Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson

The only thing Bengtsson was guilty of was that he confirmed the errors in the IPCC climate models he was working on while he was at the Max Planck Institute. So what were the zealots afraid of?
That somebody like the GWPF would fund him to come up with a more accurate computer model?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So my suspicion is that they've tried these tests and it fails their Theory, that's why they never ever show the results

that is my belief as well. failed experiments are supposed to be available as well but in climate science there is a bias "not to give fodder to the skeptics", so negative or equivical results get put in the round filing cabinet. the recent refusal to publish that Scandinavian's critique of climate sensitivities is a case in point.

You nailed it!
Case in point is what just happened to Lennart Bengtsson.

Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson

The only thing Bengtsson was guilty of was that he confirmed the errors in the IPCC climate models he was working on while he was at the Max Planck Institute. So what were the zealots afraid of?
That somebody like the GWPF would fund him to come up with a more accurate computer model?

It's Scientific Fascism, or more accurately Fanaticism. It's not Science

 

[Mustang]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario. If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that. Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all? Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!

Why do you think it's called the greenhouse effect?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario. If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that. Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all? Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!

Why do you think it's called the greenhouse effect?

Um, because it causes Global Cooling Warming Climate Change Disruption?

 

[IanC]

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario. If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that. Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all? Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!

Why do you think it's called the greenhouse effect?

I think you would find 'consensus' in climate scientists that the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an apt description because the atmospheric effect is based on radiation while actual greenhouses are based on suppression of convection.

 

[jc456]

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario. If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that. Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all? Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!

Why do you think it's called the greenhouse effect?

Oh please, give me your definition. Let's see what it is you think CO2 can do!

 

[polarbear]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

Yeah, how much could it cost to run a controlled experiment like so many other (quite trivial) ones that have been carried out on the ISS ?

That would be the best place to do it.
In a 1g environment convection interferes and if we want to determine how much heat is prevented from escaping by radiative transfer alone then it would be better to conduct such experiments first without convection.
None of these experiments that have been tried so far allow convection either because they have been carried out in small containers with some sort of lid on top. So in all fairness we would need one where a gas with precise CO2 concentrations is not bottled up and heated in a small 1 gallon vessel.
(...And in vessels that hinder long wave IR radiation)
There is no problem at all to control how much ambient CO2 is in any of the much larger ISS compartments.
Also they don`t have any problems to get their hands on lenses that do not absorb long wave IR the way ordinary glass does as in these childish experiments that are on the internet.
On the ISS it would be easy to pass sunlight through a path length of air+CO2 which simulates how much IR the atmosphere strips out before sunlight hits the earth surface and warms it.
And after that it`s quite easy to measure how warm objects of a known composition, mass, albedo and reflectivity get if they have to radiate through various concentrations of CO2.
Like You and I keep saying, nobody sane disputes that CO2 does absorb IR. Matter of fact we do now exactly how much with any decent IR spectrophotometer...and we also do know that the relationship between % absorption and concentration is logarithmic.
The prize question is not how much it absorbs, but (exactly) how much warmer an object gets if it gets heated with a light source which has the same spectral composition as sunlight that already passed through known concentrations of CO2 in air.
Conducting this experiment on the ISS would be the best way to get accurate numbers for the radiative transfer process.
Nailing down accurate numbers for convection and H2O evaporation is easy enough to do later in a 1g environment in any physics lab.
But as long as it is politically incorrect to scrutinize AGW there won`t be any chance that any such experiment will be conducted on the ISS.
However, if you would want to know what happens to "Silly Putty" in a micro gravity environment they oblige, no problem:
Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space - Schools - Santa Monica, CA Patch

Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space

The kids want to know if Silly Putty manufactured in near-zero-gravity has a different physical structure than Silly Putty mixed together on Earth. The project is in the Hawthorne-made rocket and craft launched at NASA's Cape Canaveral.

 

[whitehall]

The AGW theory suggests that the world was created in the late 1800's when modern instruments were used to record weather and that evidence of the ice ages and the mini ice ages should be disregarded.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:

"but but but


CO2!"

 

[IanC]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

Yeah, how much could it cost to run a controlled experiment like so many other (quite trivial) ones that have been carried out on the ISS ?

That would be the best place to do it.
In a 1g environment convection interferes and if we want to determine how much heat is prevented from escaping by radiative transfer alone then it would be better to conduct such experiments first without convection.
None of these experiments that have been tried so far allow convection either because they have been carried out in small containers with some sort of lid on top. So in all fairness we would need one where a gas with precise CO2 concentrations is not bottled up and heated in a small 1 gallon vessel.
(...And in vessels that hinder long wave IR radiation)
There is no problem at all to control how much ambient CO2 is in any of the much larger ISS compartments.
Also they don`t have any problems to get their hands on lenses that do not absorb long wave IR the way ordinary glass does as in these childish experiments that are on the internet.
On the ISS it would be easy to pass sunlight through a path length of air+CO2 which simulates how much IR the atmosphere strips out before sunlight hits the earth surface and warms it.
And after that it`s quite easy to measure how warm objects of a known composition, mass, albedo and reflectivity get if they have to radiate through various concentrations of CO2.
Like You and I keep saying, nobody sane disputes that CO2 does absorb IR. Matter of fact we do now exactly how much with any decent IR spectrophotometer...and we also do know that the relationship between % absorption and concentration is logarithmic.
The prize question is not how much it absorbs, but (exactly) how much warmer an object gets if it gets heated with a light source which has the same spectral composition as sunlight that already passed through known concentrations of CO2 in air.
Conducting this experiment on the ISS would be the best way to get accurate numbers for the radiative transfer process.
Nailing down accurate numbers for convection and H2O evaporation is easy enough to do later in a 1g environment in any physics lab.
But as long as it is politically incorrect to scrutinize AGW there won`t be any chance that any such experiment will be conducted on the ISS.
However, if you would want to know what happens to "Silly Putty" in a micro gravity environment they oblige, no problem:
Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space - Schools - Santa Monica, CA Patch

Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space


The kids want to know if Silly Putty manufactured in near-zero-gravity has a different physical structure than Silly Putty mixed together on Earth. The project is in the Hawthorne-made rocket and craft launched at NASA's Cape Canaveral.

Great idea! But they probably know the results would be less than spectacular. That's why there are no terrestial experiments that are highlighted as proof in an analytical fashion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.

CO2 causes ice to melt.

 

[mamooth]

The claim is cosmic radiation causes the C02 in the atmosphere to vibrate thus giving off heat.

Say what?

Please, do go on about your "cosmic radiation causes global warming" theory. I'm sure everyone would love to hear more. Could you link us to someone else stating this theory?

 

[mamooth]

I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.

We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".

So we give them the most basic setup possible, and they squeal "it's too simple!".

Way to cart those goalposts back and forth, deniers. As is clearly illustrated by denier behavior here, denialism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of those who hold faith in it, and thus clearly falls in the realm of pseudoscience.

 

[Crick]

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Uh huh. Can you point out the error of my ways? Consider it a "teaching moment"

I already have. You missed it.

 

[Crick]

The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:"but but but CO2!"

Are you really unable to see how flawed is that logic?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.

CO2 causes ice to melt.

So, the evil genius behind disruptive global climate denialism is...