Mr Redux, you are trolling, badly; I explained why the term "greenhouse" is wrong but you ignored that; I mentioned Tyndall and Arrhenius's work but you ignored that; and I referred to Beer Lambert and Hottel's work which you also ignored and to top it off you gasp at my reference to photoluminescence as though your ignorance is the benchmark of truth or some such thing.

The hallmark of the troll is to ignore factual contradiction of whatever pie-brained thing they are advocating and continue insulting and advocating. Well done Mr Redux: member of AGW trolls.

hey Ant

'I happen to believe what the great majority of climate scientists are saying.'

Look what your fellow terrorists believe about consensus science.

'The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.'

Agronomist

Dear cohenite,

Troll huh?

Let us see.

You started in the very first post on this thread with “shonks”, “3rd rate scientists” and the “monstrous ambitions” and “corrupt bureaucracy”.

Your next post included: “James slinks in”, “lie”, “discredited”, “scare-mongering”, “pernicious”, and “absurd”.

And on it has gone including you linking those of us who accept a warming planet with Islamists.

Yet you have the temerity to call me a troll? Mate I'm just dishing back a small amount of what you have been serving up the entire thread and yet again you want to sook up about it. Once again you probably have 2 choices, back off or suck it up, I will leave that up to you.

And this load of tosh from you;

“I said CO2 is photoluminescent, didn't I? Do you disagree with that? And then I mentioned Beer lambert and Hottel, didn't I? Do you disagree that CO2 is subject to Beer Lambert which produces the log constraint on the 'greenhouse' effect of additional CO2? And do you disagree with Hottel's principles who found that CO2 emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path; an infinite optical path is the basis of the AGW modelling. Hottel Charts are a scientific paradigm. Hottel's data was confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW because it's effect ceases at about 200ppmV.”

That is just your little ink trick. Now what did I call you in a past thread? Pearl I think from Finding Nemo. http://youtu.be/rkO03zVFvXA

So I will try again, I asked a very simple question; what on earth does “CO2 is photoluminescent” mean?

Come on mate you can do it, no inking this time.

Note; this little exchange we constantly repeat really has become a broken record, tiresome to all and sundry I would imagine but you guys need to park the baying hounds act, savaging anyone who doesn't agree with you. Then I would be happily fade away.

There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans. So you can now be truthful, ant, and still agree with the majority of scientists. Humans do not cause global warming, Nature does.

“People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Mr Redux asks again what photoluminescence means/ Mr Redux can do his own goggling. And for our edification can explain how and why this quality applies to CO2 at Earth temperatures and not N2 and O2, which are the bulk of the atmosphere; and again why this quality in CO2 is constrained by Beer Lambert and Hottel.

Yeah it's true Mr Redux I do disdain the alarmists with their high and mighty attitudes. But its not me who thinks he can save the world by making other people's lives miserable. Is it?

Now I'm bored with your bibs and bobs; do your homework or admit you can't.

Carbon dioxide is "photoluminescent"?
LOL

I think what Mr Redux is trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that you should actually do some homework of your own before you look like an idiot.

Ooops too late.

Even though I have not yet seen CO2 glow in the dark, if it keeps increasing maybe we are all in for a bright future.

HAHAHA

Where would I get my chuckles from if I didn't visit this backwater occasionally?

Keep it up fellas