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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (40093)	5/25/2013 1:15:11 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 86356

"Have a nice day." lolol eric is that a code word for anything ? call a waaambulance

To: Eric who wrote (40093)	5/25/2013 2:21:52 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86356

Yes, I live in world where I have tested the ideas and logic of what I an others believe. And from two whom I believe have the best practical and scientific understanding of the interactions of energy and matter a great piece of explaining what fools believe. But not why the fools believe. OK the are only German Phsicists like the majority who gave us the A-bomb. version 3 as a web pages can is located here. toms.homeip.net Version 4 in PDF has ever better explanations. toms.homeip.net Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

To: Eric who wrote (40093)	5/26/2013 2:40:41 AM
From: Maurice Winn	8 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

Eric, the reason the Global Doomsters lost the argument [apart from the fact that reality did not match the Greenhouse Effect predictions which was the ultimate test] was non-arguments such as yours. "Whatever" and "You are not published in our censored Peer Review Private Clubhouse" are not arguments. People not in your private club are aware that those are not arguments. So, because you need to persuade people that the Alarmist theory is correct, and you don't, people who are wondering what to think are persuaded by those who seem to provide the better facts and reasoning. That comes from the Watts Up With That world of facts, reason, discussion, argument and the actual results of reality. You might think you can simply say "Whatever". But that argument won't get you the public voting to load megatons of opm into the Alarmist coffers and ban CO2 production from the planet. Gratuitous insults, threats and other non-arguments are also not persuasive. I don't mean the threats of Climate Change I mean actual physical and economic threats against individuals who dare to oppose the Alarmists. Actual threats have been made various times. Threats of gaol, excommunication, firing, punches in the face, and whatnot. Even death threats [due to violence, not CO2]. Over years here, and in Len's old stream [destroyed by Landshark in more demonstration of the lack of foundations for the Doomsters], the reasoning and facts from the Denialists have trounced Doomsterism every direction that's considered, backed up each time by reality confirming that doubt was justified. Mqurice