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: maceng2 who wrote (22460)	7/24/2008 1:20:10 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

pearly plus one, you have devolved into posting bullshit. lots of handwaving and generalities. Ten thousand of Smith's proofs, no matter how formal or elegant, though those presented by Smith are not either, would not refute the simple true statement that a physics-based analysis can ?falsify? the atmospheric greenhouse effect. By the logic of your own post you are saying a physics-based analysis can ?falsify? the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The central statement of Smith is idiotic. That you cannot see even that is amusing. That a physics-based analysis can ?falsify? the atmospheric greenhouse effect. is what is stated by Gerlich & Tscheuschner with very good and well developed explanations. Your statements concerning Maxwell's equations are just more handwaving bull. At no time does Smith refute any of the falsification observations or analysis made by Gerlich & Tscheuschner. The internet distributes information far and wide. This attack of peer review is the babble of the bimbo having not other arguments. The conclusion stated by Gerlich & Tscheuschner have been refuted by no one and do agree with all observations of the real world. You have no ability to comprehend AGW suppositions are based on the physics of some Magic CO2 effect. Gerlich & Tscheuschner explain well why it is the physics of some Magic CO2 effect.