Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Science shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas......

Therefore adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the planet.

Science also shows metals are heavier than water and air.
Therefore metal objects won't float, or fly.


Jun 13, 2013 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Nial, You say "science shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas". What do you mean by that? That CO2 interacts with electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths, absorbing it and re-radiating it?

Nobody doubts that.

But it does not automatically follow that "therefore" adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the planet, so I think you are talking bllx in claiming what science shows.

Science only "shows" something when a hypothesis is confirmed by experiment and observation.

One poster here (rhoda) has repeatedly asked for results of a real physical measurement that confirms that the greenhouse effect exists. Not measurements of properties of CO2 in a bottle in a lab, but observations that show the greenhouse effect exists in reality in the atmosphere. Some posters here know quite a lot about atmospheric physics but no reply so far from anyone.

Do you know of any such measurement that has ever been performed? If not, then your belief in "greenhouse gas" is based on faith in what you have been told and not on evidence.

(What I have said here should not be taken as an assertion that the greenhouse effect does not exist)

Jun 13, 2013 at 11:49 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

> Science only "shows" something when a hypothesis is confirmed by
> experiment and observation.

That C02 is a greenhouse gas so adding more ot the atmosphere must warm the planet is one argument often used by warmists.

I'm just trying to come up with a quick rebuttal that illustrates this level of logic is ridiculous.


Jun 14, 2013 at 7:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterNial

It's all to do with sums of vectors.

Just because something is capable of warming something doesn't mean that the thing gets warm.

If I fill a large balloon with helium, it might be capable of lifting me up into the air. but if I'm tied to a large boulder, it doesn't manage to actually move me up. If the boulder is shoved off a cliff I will actually move down despite the upwards vector the helium applied. Likewise, if I jump on an elevator whilst holding the balloon, I may move upwards very fast, but almost none of it is anything to do with the balloon.

The AGW argument is because a helium balloon can lift me, then if I am moving up then it must be because of the balloon.

The Slayer argument is that helium does not lift anything. There is no helium.

Jun 14, 2013 at 8:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames