The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: maceng2 who wrote (22463)	7/24/2008 3:36:34 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) of 36917

Pearly, what is did I read the paper again. I quoted directly from the paper. I have pdf and pdf as text that I use to cut and paste directly. I have verified the facts, the details and all the logically false statements and bogus citations of Smith. I quoted the a clear and accurate response to Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner's paper. I verified the the footnote 1. did you not read claims1. 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. In addition citations 2 3 and 4 are books never mentioned by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner's paper. There are only 5 citations and the last is Smith's opinion of a a good discussion of the development of more and more detailed climate models. That predict a fingerprint that does not exist. To make it clear, this is the I. INTRODUCTION 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. In fact, the standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion. claims1 is ?Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics? by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, arXiv:0707.1161(2007). I am not confused, well only in that I do not know of you are really confused or just handwaving bull in a dishonest attempt at misdirection.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next