At this point, one might as well just pick a side and ride with it, or take no side and wonder as I am doing now. Seeing as you’re an idiot, according to the other side, no matter which argument you choose to support.

This is why the youth of today don’t trust science, religion, politicians, or anything else in society for that matter. What’s to believe in? It’s all true, and it’s all a lie…

Such a shame…

Caid.

444

12.Dave Kaskela January 2nd, 2010 12:38 pm :

I look forward to Doug, Linda and other’s rational and well thought out contributions to Whiskey and Gunpowder.

I look forward to them too, but I am yet to see any.

On other words, for every paper a climate change sceptic puts forward, a climate change believer can put another equally rigourous looking paper forward. Until very recently, I was actually a climate change agnostic, I’m leaning more towards GW and possibly AGW these days.

Regardless, here’s the refutation intro and link. Follow the link, read the refutation, decide for yourself. It claims the Earth would be 33 deg C or K cooler if not for the blanketing atmosphere, which I think we would all agree would be pretty inhospitable for most of us anywhere on the planet.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....4324v1.pdf

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without
an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
PACS numbers: 92.60.Vb,05.90.+m
I. INTRODUCTION
The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion.
First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved. Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved, including one presented by Gerlich and Tscheuschner1, and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint. A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.

What I do object to is a strange diatribe that the planet doesn’t matter at all, nor anything in it, and THAT’S why I write a getting rich in investing newsletter. Because nothing actually matters, least of all the planet and everything in it.

Conveniently buddhistic about the fate of the planet one second, infinitely self-interested and chasing wealth the next.

Other commenters have failed to see the irony in the original remarks, which is a bit scary in itself. And apparently all we will need to get through this is whisky and gunpowder, a nice dumbed down piece of nostalgic colonial Americana. Stops ya thinking.

Regarding some of the other comments, H2O or water VAPOUR in fact is a greenhouse gas. You know, water vapour, the stuff that is sublimated into the atmosphere in gaseous form. In other words, water vapour traps heat, more so than if there was no water vapour.

I’m not going to go into the question of whether, for instance, we should be in a relative ice age right now and in fact it’s still getting warmer — man’s activity is more than offsetting natural cooling effects. But I’m willing to leave the question of AGW open — I’m actually a scientist myself, and no, I’m not brainwashed, and no, I don’t make any money out of any carbon mitigation projects etc etc.

I say, let’s look at the research. Let’s look at it here, right now, on this forum, and paste in 20 million words on all the fors and againsts to prove it conclusively one way or he other here, now, once and for all. Then we can get back to work on that rocket to Venus.

PS is anyone here an ozone hole denier by any chance? pro-CFC? just wondering…

I sure hope the gov’t doesn’t act against pet flatulence.

I don’t have a pet, either.

For those of an educated physics background, the paper above puts a final “NONSENSE” label on the mindless garbage of Al Gore and his religious mob. It’s sad that the lack of a good education is so prevalent in a world that really needs folk that actually understand (even as little as we do) the world at large. This AGW period will be reviewed in later history as a period equivalent to other wacky “public religions” like Phlogiston and Caloric. It is unfortunate that the public microphone can be handed to complete dunderheads like Gore.