SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: maceng2 who wrote (22456)7/24/2008 11:37:18 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) of 36917
 
Yes the paper failed at every purpose and proved nothing. The standard correction, It proves hand waving nonsense can fool some of the people all the time.

It starts with the false and I could add stupid to the point of dishonest of making this strawman for refutation.

The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately
respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can ?falsify? the atmospheric greenhouse effect.


The word falsify is used to mean does not exist. It then selectively defines a set of conditions implying that the original document state information to the contrary.

It is all bull. It is cheap and unworthy. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner spends more pages detailing the different perceived meanings of Greenhouse Effects and CO2 than the ass Arthur P. Smith does making up false his fabrication of refutation.

My question was entirely valid as Arthur P. Smith statement of refutation by implication and method of logic and honesty say it refutes all.

Does Arthur P. Smith explain how 1 part in 10,000 will raise the temperature by 1 part in 10?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext