Hmmm so now the ad hom continues but disguised as a reply to Tim.
First, your Greenhouse Gas 'Law' is still only a theory, that is why it is called a theory. Of course, if you have links to the Greenhouse Gas Laws please share them.
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
Gravity is "only" a theory.Originally Posted by manbearpig
But would you stand under a falling rock?
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Yes, we have been here before.
Gravity is actually a law (Law of Gravity - introduction to Newton's law of gravity) , 'Newtons Law of Gravitation' even though there are those that suggest it is still a 'theory' and would have to disprove mathematics and observations to deny gravity, if they do, then fair enough.
Either way, the rock will fall with or without laws and theories because it is in the real world. Whereas AGW is in the computer world of simulations or models which seem to persistently fail. So yes, I would stand under a virtual rock in an AGW simulation because I know that I would survive it.
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp
The Universal Theory of Gravity...........
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
You don't understand the use of the word theory in a scientific context as opposed to everyday use. Creationists make the same mistake when they dismiss the theory of evolution. A theory is a verifiable principle and in that sense you are correct, greenhouse gas theory has indeed been verified in a variety of ways, probably to a greater degree than evolution which neither of us doubt. However nothing is ever sacred in science, but to overturn scientific theory supporting evidence is needed. If you feel the accepted scientific theory describing the actions of greenhouse gases is false then please show that empirically.
Stop bleating ad hom. Man up a bit or report any posts you feel are offensive.
Here is an interesting paper published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v4.pdf
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
Only skimmed through it but I couldn't find any experimental work in there, I thought you were into empirical evidence? It appears to be a rambling discussion document with frequent reference to non-scientific issues such as politics and AGW films and documentaries not to mention a huge section on the old favourite, how a real greenhouse works, i.e. it debunks Al Gore "science" rather than real science...
There are plenty of refutations of the paper even on AGW sceptic websites, I'm sure you can find them as well as me, but this is one from :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.4324v1.pdf
There are criticisms of the detail of this rebuttal but the fundamentals are effectively unchallenged.
This might be more to your liking from a sceptical website:
On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) « The Science of Doom
Most apt quote I read on the paper:
"Look, AGW may be right, or it may be wrong. I wish I knew! But the G&T paper is incompetent, and if you’re a serious AGW skeptic looking to discredit AGW, I suggest you look elsewhere."
From much of what I read, and I repeat much was from sceptical websites, I don't think there is much point looking more deeply into that huge and rambling paper. You are welcome to help cut through the waffle and highlight relevant pieces people have missed though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks