I suppose I could trawl the comments for the multifarious errors on your part Mr Redux but since you support AGW which is one big mistake I won't bother; I'll content myself with asking you throw some light, photoluminescent or otherwise on how AGW explains Beer Lambert and Hottel.

I eagerly await your superior knowledge on these vexed issues.

The Oregon Petition? cohenite has really jumped the shark this time around. The signers of this petition are mostly vets and doctors. And the odd person who was dead when they signed it like Charles A Papacostas.

I suppose if you have zombies in your corner, you don't need to have science on your side.

Bait offered and sucked down by the resident alarmist Leviathan.

Of course the Oregon petition is phony; alarmists say so. And of course the alarmists say nothing about the scandal at Oregon University involving Art Robinson who set up the OP:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/the-moment-to-test-what-we-are-made-of-is-here/

Dear cohenite,

Oh you are a silly duffer my friend, AGW doesn't explain anything rather it is a phenomena that is examined by science such a Beer Lambert.

So my question to you is how does Beer Lambert explain AGW? Don't be shy now.

Mr Redux your question doesn't make sense and if it is some ham-fisted attempt at further entrapment so you can shout 'gotcha' as with your cunning trap about a climatically significant period then I'm not interested.

BL establishes a declining effect of heat trapping by extra CO2; for instance read this:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/Hammer2007.pdf

Noting Figure 2

Dear cohenite,

I'm so looking forward to reading your link because I'm sure it will be unbiased, peer reviewed, and from a climate scientist, or at least a scientist of some sort.

Okay let us see, the Lavoisier Group? There goes any sense of un-biased material I'm afraid.

No fear, I'm sure it will be peer reviewed, oops, nope.

Well perhaps from a climate scientist? Um, nope.

A scientist of some description? Nope.

Okay mate what would you like me to do now?

Actually Clive Hamilton said of the Lavoisier Group that one can always find one of the following positions in their publications;

1. There is no evidence of global warming.

2. If there is evidence of global warming, then it is not due to human activity.

3. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, then it is not going to be damaging.

4. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, and it is going to be damaging, then the costs of avoiding it are too high, so we should do nothing.

Could you tell the assembled audience where you lie on the spectrum? I think floating somewhere between 1 and 2 but I will let you speak for yourself.