Galahs: a pack of…Carbon Dioxide Laser

I left the following comment at
Once again this guy is either extra thick or is simply unable to discuss a matter that conflicts with his faith.
As you can see he distorted my assertions and tried to divert the subject to his co2 laser.
At least one of my comments was spammed and I did not have a copy here.
“GDay Roger – the CO2 laser exploits the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb and re-emit within the Infra-Red just as Tyndall observed – would you mind demonstrating that the CO2 laser is a scam (we could televise this and blow open the AGW fraud completely see”Sorry about this but the person who never volunteered his name at the other site has stopped publishing my comments it appears.
It appears my questions are too hard to answer although I see he may have explored my site a little.
As to your question, Im sure a laser works exactly as you describe because as you are no doubt very aware you can test it empirically in the conditions that it is designed to operate in.
We both know the world has many factors that control the climate and unfortunately it is impossible to test the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis empirically.So all we have left is an unproven hypothesis and if you care to visit my site at you will read just some of the things that actually disprove the above hypothesis.
Considering that the bill for IPCC carbon emission requirements will almost certainly break our economies, the standard of proof of the AGW theory needs to be very high indeed.
Confidence in the IPCC has plummeted recently because of the host of cockups that are emerging from their latest report and quite reasonably this fact has put most people on guard.
So the question is to you: Would you be happy to starve to death now on the current evidence of a disasterous heating of the planet within the next 100 years?



April 27, 2010 8:15 PM

DaveMcRae said…

I am delighted you can, grudgingly I think, get past the first part of atmospheric physics that CO2 is IR-active.But then, without a scrap of science for support, you assert atmospheric physics is something else that every undergraduate atmospheric physics textbook says it is.

I think I know where you’re coming from. Like a person who will not accept they have cancer for fear of chemotherapy, you deny climate physics because you fear the cure is real bad and includes, you claim, starving on death row.

I’d be surprised if you know of an economic paper that draws that conclusion. In fact, I think you’ll find an overwhelming economic consensus that the cure is at worst a tiny impost (and then that’s only on the 5% chance that AGW turns out less than expected) but will probably be advantageous to a nation’s economic growth.

And if we miss out on the 95% chance that a >2C rise will have moderate to severe negative impacts to almost all economies then the difference is much greater – I’m familiar with the economic report of Garnaut’s only because it’s Australian, but there are many others and their conclusions are fairly similar especially with regard to the non-existence of starving death rows and that placing a price on carbon is both desirable and will lead to good things.

So no, I would not be happy to starve on a death row – but that is not remotely on the cards in any scenario.

Some interesting links regarding the economics of climate change action (I think we can move past the science as I strongly suspect you’re concerned with the economic cost of possible cures of which rest assured, the CO2 molecule is not capable of caring)
“It’s an externality, stupid-so price it” C.Cottarelli, IMF

May 6, 2010 9:28 PM


No I am saying that the cost of meeting IPCC obligations is extremely high, probably impossibly so. Therefore if we are going to commit to following them, we had better be very very sure that the so far unproven “Anthropogenic co2 causes global warming” hypothesis is absolutely water tight.

To use your analogy, it would be a bit silly to operate for cancer in your brain if it turned out that all you were suffering from were temporary piles around your anus.

Get it?



Will post this conversation on
Feel welcome to visit.


This guy also left the following comment about my comment on

Roger popped over briefly to mine as well and repeated his assertion that starvation will be rampant if we implement the economic measures needed to cull CO2 emissions thus greenhouse gas theory is wrong.

This argument is not uncommon – but still fascinates me – it’s like to deny the existence of cancer because cancer treatments can be harsh. I do wish it worked like that. But unfortunately, the CO2 molecule refuses to alter it’s physical properties in response to our economic circumstances. And he wont allow me to cut him either, although he was nice about declining.

(I also don’t think the treatments are that harsh with regard to CO2 mitigation, mainly because of mainstream economic reports like Stern and Garnaut and no economic paper exists that asserts additional starvation due to CO2 mitigation so I have no idea where they get that assertion from)

And yes, his site is a Gish-gallop of every denier argument regardless of whether they are contradictory to other denier argument or how many ways they’ve been debunked previously.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: