"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"

its great to finally see some research some out AGAINST climate warming. as you probably know the University of East Anglia's email which were released some time ago are a real eye-opener. the idea that some scientist feel that the suppression of contradictory research is not only acceptable, but admirable, is truly terrifying.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

great find.


my teacher is going to get a kick out of this ^^

 

Well. He knows how to mash numbers to concoct a tale of general bull shit. Pretty much stopped reading after he misused the figures on his first couple of tables.

Let's start with, what is thermal conductivity (the general premise of his paper): Well what is it? And how does it relate to the ability of a gas to retain heat? I find it amusing how he just skipped over this connection, which is arguably the MOST important thing he needs to establish.

Co2 accounts for 10-30% of the greenhouse effect (second to water vapor). The ".0X%" figures he posted are off by over a magnitude of 100 when comparing them to the more relevant physics at hand.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_climate_methane - This could be a problem.

 

There is way too much politics involved in global warming, IMO. It's become more of a way for politicians to gain media attention (I.E. Al Gore) rather than solve a potential problem.

 

I lold. Interesting read.

'FFLOL' - He doesn't need to cover the basics in an advanced paper showing his logical reasons for not believing in Global Warming.

If any of you were alive during the Clinton Administration, you'd remember how this whole Global Warming thing started. It was actually a joke some guy made about how we were cutting down too many trees to, and Al Gore should fix that as well (cause Al Gore claimed to be the savior of the world in a manner of speaking), and well, Gore took it seriously, and showed up the guy by joining a few hippy groups and shit. It was quite interesting.

The only reality we face in the terms of Global Destruction is a loss of resources. Trees, metals, oil, etc... All very important in day to day life, but very limited on this planet still. If anything, our excessive use of the materials in the Earth has resulted in drastic changes in the way the planet works, and could potentially cause problems in the near future...

But CO2 has NOTHING to do with it >.>.

 

This paper isn't about CO2, is it? It challenges the current understanding of why the Earth is warmer than a planet without an atmosphere.

The question that springs to mind is why we're not freezing or burning to death on a daily basis, since there isn't something like the greenhouse effect at work.

I haven't read the paper yet, it looks like hard work.