On 1/17/2010 7:00 PM, eckinator wrote:
2010/1/18 P. J. Alling<webstertwenty...@gmail.com>:
Historical data doesn't actually back thus up, the warming trends seem to
have no actual connection with Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere. You
might want to read a Physicists debunking of the Greenhouse Gas theory. It
doesn't stand up to experiment.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
The above linked paper asserts that the greenhouse effect postulated for the
atmosphere violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing violates the
second law of thermodynamics. I knew that, but I never examined the
assumptions in climatology. One or the other is a crock. I can't disprove
the paper, and I can no longer accept the standard climate models.
while I find out who's paying for them to publish their crap (yes,
I've read this abomination of a scientific paper before), please take
the time to read this rebuttal with an open mind:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
cheers
ecke
That's not a refutation. It's a bald statement of fact. Not even a link
to the paper refuting the work. Nor it such a work in his list of
publications. Now when he publishes we have an argument.
I think Physics journals are less likely to publish crap than
Climatology journals, and I did some research. If the authors were paid
by anyone it's well hidden.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
