Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22177)	7/13/2008 4:35:53 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

That graph you reference comes from a brilliant piece of explanation of the history of much of the science and sham since the nineteenth century. You have plumbed for option (A) I see. Good, I like a man who can show conviction. Getting to the heart of the matter is always quicker that way. Some other attributes you show as a "scientist" though are poor. Anyone who tries to understand the complexities and difficult concepts of science always welcomes the other persons point of view. You don't, you pour scorn on any different point of view and use numerous insults. That does show a weak hand btw, as other posters have noted. from one of your other posts. My html translation, a work in progress. -lol- you are beginning to sound like some medieval priest who has just found a long lost copy of the bible AND just invented the printing press. Don't forget to translate it into 100 foreign languages as well.**** That paper "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" is posted all over the place, don't worry about it. It's a handy paper, yeah, I like it. -g- As I have said, another's person point of view is always welcome, and educational ! /edit **** In fact the paper is posted in so many places, it's hard not to "accidently" stumble across a copy, maybe you should get out more, stray away on the internet from just the narrow political spectrum you have confined yourself too -g-

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22177)	7/13/2008 8:10:01 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

It is possible you do not have the intellectual tools or desire to know the real truth. I suppose you have already read this rebuttal to Gerlich's and Tscheuschner's paper before you cam up with that comment. Yes? V. CONCLUSION Gerlich and Tscheuschner1 state, among more extravagant claims, that “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.” The above analysis I believe completely establishes, within perfectly simple and appropriate theoretical physics constructs, the main points. Namely that assuming “the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation” leads to “a warming of the Earth’s surface” relative to firm limits established by basic physical principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared. Loads more can be found here.. arxiv.org It also has got some neat math in it. I checked it over as best I can, didn't see anywhere were the author has dropped a stitch, sneaked away or a lost radiation coefficient. etc . Do you??