AGW Debunked For £5.00

| 18 Comments | No TrackBacks

While our government is spending billions to prove AGW, this chap disproves it for £5.00.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL:


Wouldn't pressure affect the result? It might be better to place deflated balloons on the bottles instead of caps.

Great experiment. Now all that needs to be done is sell it to Mann and Flannery, etc.

No doubt some smartass like Gore will come along and complain that the experimenter didn't use salt water.


Sorry for putting this link here under this topic, I did not know where else !

It is news from today from SPPI and very interesting !

Hello . Thank you for this excellent Note . Keep up the awesome job. Cannot wait for another post. BTW. Gush.. it is almost 3 at the morning - need to go sleep :D cu.

CO2's ability to retain heat in comparison to other materials is basically a function of its specific heat. There are two values of this for a gas:
Cp - is the specific heat per mole at constant pressure. Cp = 8.73840 cal/mole-degK for CO2.
Cv - is the specific heat per mole at constant volume. Cv = 6.71268 cal/mole-degK for CO2.
The video is basically demonstrating Cv, however CO2 in the atmosphere behaves according to Cp.
Compare this with nitrogen:
Cp = 6.95100 cal/mole-degK for N2.
Cv = 4.86570 cal/mole-degK for N2.
The ratio of Cp (CO2) to Cp (N2) = 1.2571429, so CO2 does have a slightly higher ability to retain heat than does nitrogen.

My belief has always been that the best debunk for AGW is that fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is only 380 ppmv, that's only one CO2 molecule to 2,632 air molecules. This means that 99.962% of all air volume does not contain any CO2. Contrary to populist literature and pictorials that explain greenhouse gases and climate at the high school level, CO2 does not transmit much of its IR trapping heat via radiation, rather most is transferred by conduction and convection to the surrounding air molecules, and a very small amount directly to the ground. If a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere undergoes say a 10 deg C heat rise due to heat trapping, at most it will heat the 2,632 surrounding air molecules by about 0.005 deg C.

I really like your blog and look forward to your next story. Thanks much.

Hey Elmer - I don't see a single ! - come on man, maybe you should go out on the road !


A top 40 single man ! Rock and Roll !

Keep up the interesting writing. I loved reading your posting. Thanks

Firstly I would like to thank Elmer for putting my Video up on M4GW. I am very grateful.

Secondly I would like to say thanks to toyotawhizguy for his comments. I think to a point what you are saying has some validity. The thing you may be overlooking is that all three bottles are treated the same. They all have their lids screwed on tightly. This means that none of them are at constant pressure because as the gas inside each bottle is warmed it expands and the pressure increases. In the atmosphere there is no such thing as constant pressure. Incidentally I get the same results (i.e. that CO2 does not retain more heat than ordinary air) when all the lids are off.

Also I don't know where you get these figures from but I have rigorously tested CO2 against ordinary air (nitrogen 79% and oxygen 20%) and I do not get one single result in which CO2 retains more heat than air.

It is important to remember that the bulk of the greenhouse theory and therefore AGW is based on the work of John Tyndall. In a set of experiments called "Radiant Heat in the Domain of Molecular Physics" Tyndall falsely concluded that Oxygen and Nitrogen were practically transparent to infrared. But a gas which is transparent to infrared is not a gas it is a solid (ice). More accurately speaking, there is no such thing as a gas that is transparent to infrared (radiant heat). A gas is a gas by virtue of the fact that it has absorbed large amounts of infrared.

The melting points of Oxygen and Nitrogen are 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively. Whereas the melting points of CO2 and water (the two main so called "greenhouse gases") are 194.65 K and 273 K respectively.

These facts alone are enough to debunk the "greenhouse effect" and therefore AGW itself.

The purpose of my video "AGW Debunked for £5.00" is not to prove anything, as it is not really possible to debunk AGW with one video. The real purpose of the video is to show that it is possible to test the claims made by the AGW fraudsters and remove any doubt that AGW is a fraud. It is meant to inspire people to go and test CO2 to see for themselves if it could cause global warming by retaining more heat than the rest of the gases in the atmosphere.

This is what I have been doing myself and will be publishing more conclusive results on my website, which really do debunk AGW for literally pennies. While our governments "spunk" billions of our taxes on dangerous, agenda driven deviants, posing as scientists.

So in summation, it is silly to criticise this video because it is just a video and doesn't really prove anything. But what it is meant to show is that we can all easily test the false claims made about CO2 and it wont cost us any more than the loose change down the back of the sofa.

Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

Great blog, although I think some of the stuff on itt is a little pre used lol.

Greenhouse effect is the gradual warming of the air surrounding the earth as a result of heat being trapped by environmental pollution.

i was beginning to reckon i may possibly end up being the sole human being which cared about this, at the least currently i know i'm not odd :) i will make it a point to have a look at some different posts when i get some caffeine in me, it really is challenging to read with out my coffee, adios for now :)

Can any Republicans who suppose themselves bright explain how Bushes TARP was NOT Socialism? Can any of you assure me, regardless of what your Party Pronounces it believes in and has for however long, I should trust a sole word of it after viewing continuing deficit expenditure under your politicos? I relieve Reagan from this - the Eastern Bloc needed to be trounced and I think he's the only leader of the last fifty years who had a reasonable excuse for it and as I see it we broken their backs economically. But since then?

i might not have considered this had been trendy a couple years ago nevertheless its surprising the way in which years switches the manner by which you have an understanding of new kinds of creative concepts, many thanks with regard to the write-up it really is enjoyable to look over anything intelligent now and then in lieu of the widely seen rubbish mascarading as a blog on the internet, cheers

I have been looking for a good supplement to help me sleep too. Melatonin has bad side effects. I read about Calms Forte 4 Kids. That link goes to a review. You think its as good as they say?

Very cool and I just bookmarked this site!

Leave a comment

September 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Powered by Movable Type 5.12

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Elmer published on January 20, 2010 1:18 PM.

CO2 Trade War Hits Midwest was the previous entry in this blog.

EPA's CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.