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: Wharf Rat who wrote (46719)	1/25/2014 1:43:29 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Well I would not expect a Nobel Prize for theoretical physicists who prove so many science fool who hoax the Nobel Committee into giving the IPCC a prize would ever be considered. It seems the no theoretical physicists find any any reason to question the analysis and conclusions of Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Gerhard Gerlich. low life trolls will cast insults, but never find genuine arguments.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46719)	1/25/2014 4:22:29 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Hi Wharf Rat; I think the paper is junk but your comment is, as is usual for you, quite incorrect: "Of course not. No peer pub cites them, either. They were flushed down the toilet, long ago." First, they were published in a peer reviewed journal, and second, a comment on their paper claiming it was wrong was published in the same journal. Here's the comment article: COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS" Halpern, Colose, Ho-stuart, Shore, Smith and Zimmerman, IJMPB 24, 10 (2010) In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. ... worldscientific.com I mean really. Do you bother to check any of the "facts" you bring to us? -- Carl