The flea says:” Your constant comment is that there is no interaction between CO2 and radiated infrared.”
Yes, or No?

Show me where I made such a comment even once, flea.
Is it possible for you to ever tell the truth, flea, or do you suffer some affliction which precludes it.
The interaction is between all greenhouse gases and infrared, not just the minor greenhouse gas, CO2
You have bleated about the interaction of CO2 and infrared for some time now, but never said how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate.
I note that you have no qualifications whatsoever in science.

Leo

You really are a comedian; aggressive word games have nothing to do with science..

You stated:

"You have bleated about the interaction of CO2 and infrared for some time now, but never said how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate."

If you don't understand that, why do you bother continuing with your foolish comments?

So where is your experimentation that shows CO2 has no impact on climate.
I provided a clip showing an experiment which displays CO2 interacting with natural light.

Not able to produce experiments displays how your comments are based on film flam.

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The flea says:”
So where is your experimentation that shows CO2 has no impact on climate.”
So where did I say that, flea. I pointed out that you were lying again when you asserted that I had so commented, and asked you to identify the comment which you baselessly assert that I made. Where and when do you say I made it. Produce a copy, as I do when I refer to one of your comments. If it is just another of your lies, then say so, and stop wasting every-ones’ time.
I asked you” how you consider it affects the topic under discussion, namely, your failure to reference any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate."
Your reply:” If you don't understand that, why do you bother continuing “
Of course I understand, it is because you know nothing about science, and are feeble minded enough to make stupid assertions. I asked you, because you will have a different view to me, and I want to know what it is.
Of course, in your pig ignorant way, you will refuse to answer, so we have a record, that I have asked a pertinent question, and you do not answer, because you do not conduct yourself in a civil manner.
I ask you again, How do you think the interaction of CO2 with infrared is relevant to your failure to reference any science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. I have told you why, so you either agree with me, or tell us what you believe is your reason.

Leo

I provided a challenge for you to provide an experiment to show that there is no forcing between CO2 and light.

You are not able to do so; trying to hide behind words, aggression, and misrepresenting what I stated is meaningless.

Where is your science, Leo? Where are your experiments I have CHALLENGED you to provide?

I provided an experiment involving natural light and CO2.

http://vimeo.com/32056574

Mythbusters have also created an experiment to show the same effect.

Guys, I don't generally follow climate change discussions, mostly because of the abusive nature of the comments.

If this is a serious topic, as you all seem to be convinced that it is, on both sides, then surely it is worth having a serious discussion about.

In general, a serious and productive discussion starts with the willingness of both sides to properly examine the other side's arguments with an assumption of good faith.

So here's a challenge, for what its worth: what do you agree on? If there isn't anything at all after all this time, then perhaps its time you started to work out what it is you are trying to achieve by your constant bickering?

Here's another challenge, which might be a little harder: try to argue, just for the fun of it, for the other side.

The flea considers any truthful description of his behaviour to be abuse.
He made an untruthful assertion of what I had said about CO2 and infrared. I asked him to supply a copy of the comment as I always do, if I deal with one of his comments.
Because he has lied about what I said, he is unable to do so, but has the unmitigated gall to call on me to justify the comment, which I never made.
He ignored my request, and says:” I provided a challenge for you to provide an experiment to show that there is no forcing between CO2 and light.

You are not able to do so; trying to hide behind words, aggression, and misrepresenting what I stated is meaningless.”
The flea. avoids answering questions about his assertions by lying.
If what you say is true, flea, you can easily verify it, but you have ignored all requests to do so, because you are lying.

Craig Minns thinks he has a solution.
I doubt if it could overcome the flea’s tactic of lying about what I have said, and then pointing out that I cannot verify what I have not said, but the flea has concocted, and falsely asserted to be my comment.