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 (46752)

1/26/2014 11:05:34 AM

From: Thomas A Watson

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86356

ratty, do you check the dates on the blog links of whatever review you post. The date is a very simple fact too check. Well maybe to dishonest trolls anything said supporting their religeous doctrines any time is true forever. In rational logical honest arguments, What is in 2010 overules what is alleged to have been in 2008. You make Michael Mann proud.

The most elegant analsysis of Halpern's hilarity is here. chriscolose.wordpress.com The blog's author is pro Halpern I believe but the best analysis posted is by

Terry Oldberg | May 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm | Reply Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2010 article of Halpern et al (hereafter collectively referenced as “H”).

In the abstract to their article, H state that Gerlich and Tscheushchner (hereafter collectively referenced by “GT”) “…claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.” This statement is prone to being misunderstood for, as GT demonstrate in their 2009 article, the literature describes many such effects. In their article, GT claim to have falsified all such effects that had been described at the time of publication of this article.

One of these effects is described by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) at (
windows.ucar.edu ). UCAR references this effect as “the greenhouse effect.” While GT claim to have falsified “the greenhouse effect,” H argue GT have done no such thing. In the following remarks I argue that H’s argument fails from its violation of a principle of logic......

..... ....... ......

It has been proved that, in the terminology of H’s argument, the “back radiation” is a flow of heat-t and is not a flow of heat-t. On the basis of this contradition H’s argument logically fails, from its violation of the law of non-contradiction.

====================================================================

This is the full listing of what I know of as Peer Reviewed articles on Falsification.
It seem the PDF links from IJMP are not simply available.

However the GERHARD GERLICH, RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER papers are available from.
arxiv.org

reply to Halpern comments.
toms.homeip.net

is the original.

I see no junk from GERHARD GERLICH, RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, only percise definitions and expanations of what physics is and what making it up is.

FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH, RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 23, No. 03, pp. 275-364
Abstract | References | PDF (1714 KB) | PDF Plus (1359 KB)

COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"
JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN
International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 24, No. 10, pp. 1309-1332
Abstract | References | PDF (833 KB) | PDF Plus (544 KB)

REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN"
GERHARD GERLICH, RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 24, No. 10, pp. 1333-1359
Abstract | References | PDF (712 KB) | PDF Plus (721 KB)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46752)	1/26/2014 4:52:42 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 86356

Hi Wharf Rat; Re: "Yes; you prolly missed these."; You stated that G&T hadn't passed peer review and that was why there were no peer reviewed replies to them. I showed that you were wrong on both counts. But I don't support G&T. If you want to argue with me about it, you need to either admit you were wrong about G&T passing peer review or show that they did not, in fact, pass peer review. You might do that by, for example, providing evidence that IJMPB isn't a peer reviewed journal, LOL. The question of whether it should have passed peer review, that you can take up with Watson. I won't support the paper or bother to read further criticism and support of it. -- Carl