Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

It's funny how AGW propagandists and their apologists attack any science that isn't peer reviewed unless it is biased towards their position and/or the peer-reviewed science is contrary to their agenda.

Here is a juicy bit of hypocrisy from non-peer reviewed Arthur P. Smith on his Amazon review of An Inconvenient Truth:

This book stands on its own, making the case for global warming about as clear as is possible, relying on peer-reviewed science at every stage, from the most alarming reports to reassurances that we can actually do something about it.

www.amazon.com...=cm_rdp_product

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes reading Arhennius first?

lol, that would be too simple.

Watching other physicists like Gerhard Kramm (and themselves) try to justify G&Ts schoolboy errors on blogs was bleedin' hilarious. A serious case of the arrogance of physicists amongst that crew

I see EU/mauddib is ejaculating here. Please tell me that he is incoherently arguing both up and down? That greenhouse gases exist (water vapour FTW!), but also coming down on G&Ts side who argue contrarywise?

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

Originally posted by metamagic
This is entertaining!

It won't last! See if you say the same 6 months later.

Uh oh.. are you fiddling with sources here? I'm not melatonin.

He apparently misses my attention. Sorry EU, it will always be unrequited.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance

Here is a juicy bit of hypocrisy from non-peer reviewed Arthur P. Smith on his Amazon review of An Inconvenient Truth:

This book stands on its own, making the case for global warming about as clear as is possible, relying on peer-reviewed science at every stage, from the most alarming reports to reassurances that we can actually do something about it.

And the hypocrisy is what exactly?

reply to post by metamagic


Claiming peer-reviewed science makes Gore's work infallible but not having his own paper, that you and the OP's article cited, validated by peer review.

That hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
Claiming peer-reviewed science makes Gore's work infallible

Where does he say that?

but not having his own paper, that you and the OP's article cited, validated by peer review.

That hypocrisy.

He's an author on Halpern's paper. They likely decided to work together and submit one single article to IJMP-B than try submitting many.

Since when is that hypocrisy even if he didn't submit it? Arxiv is a site where people in certain fields can submit preprints. G&Ts article was there for a while before being submitted and published, and Arthur Smith's response was submitted for that particular Arxivmanuscript.

Arthur Smith submitted to Arxiv in 2008. G&T submitted to Arxiv in 2007.

G&T never had their article published in a peer-reviewed journal until Jan 2009. Halpern et al. (including Smith) have a response to the IJMP-B article in press.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by melatonin]

ok, lets focus people

the truth is that no one really knows if the earth is cooling or heating, no one knows if the cooling or heating, if its happening, is caused by men

the reality is that we need to change the way we live, to use more green, thats a fact, I think we need to improve in that

but we cant accept the fact that some people like AL GORE wants to implement a fart meter in every person and charge them

lets do our best to improve the green tec, but we need to be careful about AL GORE, he will make a lot of money

another thing: for everyone who agrees with AL GORE politics
did u know what one of these politics about GW is to buy and sell carbon emissions: so, a country that dont produce carbon would sell their rights to emit carbon, so, countries that already produce a lot, will just buy other's countries rights

is this really a good politic? is this really the right thing to nature? well, for me it seems like BS and money making process

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
reply to post by metamagic

 

Claiming peer-reviewed science makes Gore's work infallible but not having his own paper, that you and the OP's article cited, validated by peer review.

That hypocrisy.

Do you own a dictionary? Lets look at the quote..

This book stands on its own, making the case for global warming about as clear as is possible, relying on peer-reviewed science at every stage, from the most alarming reports to reassurances that we can actually do something about it.

First where is the clam of infallibility? He says it makes the case clear, there is no claim of correctness here. Either you don't know the meaning of the word infallible or you are just making stuff up.

Second, the OP original article cited did not cite the Smith article since it was published in response to the OPs original article. I cited it.

Third, mentioning that Gore's book relies peer-reviewed science is a comment about the book, not about what one should or should not do, or about the author's beliefs or opinions about peer reviewed science.. Hypocrisy is generally accepted to be claiming to have opinions or standards that one does not have. There is no statement or claim about peer-reviewed science made by the author of the quote. Referring to something in a descriptive manner is not making a claim about it.

I think you need to look these terms up before you use them.

Accusation is not argument.


[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

Originally posted by Ionut

you got that right.. once I warmed up a mansion with 14 rooms by use of a single light-bulb

Well yes, you would have.

If you have 14 rooms and switch on a light bulb in one room than the temperature of that room will increase (well, it would, before we banned incandescent bulb) and as a result the average temperature of the mansion would have also increased. Thus you prove AGW

Originally posted by ventian
No one seems to have the ba**s to say it so I will. Those two guys may be just a handful of scientists we have left.

I read parts of the paper. If these are the best scientists, we all are in big trouble.

The main part of their argument is in fact hand waiving. See page 44. Sure, there is some classical radiation theory thrown in for a good measure, but that does not change the fact that they just repeat "falsification" as some kind of a mantra. On page 86, they simply say that differential equations are a b!tch so solve numerically. Well guys, this is done every day in a variety of applications. Sure it can be tough but it doesn't mean that it's impossible or always flawed as they proclaim.

They simply do not explain how specific solution methods fail, and that unfortunately is the crux of their own argument, which is an abject failure. I've done numerical solutions myself, and I should be able to follow their train of thought, however they don't offer jack.

All in all, any paper that starts with "Falsification" is politics and not science, and its contents prove just that.

Okay, this time I didn't need to read the entire thread.

What is the damage here?

Do you people WANT "global warming" to be real?

It's not... so, why do you fight so hard for it?

Sure, the globe warms. And it cools. I guess now is the time to point out that when humans get warmer, YES, a fever MIGHT mean you're sick! The planet is not a human. Any of you humans who think you can, "save the planet" are truly incredible people. Interesting that I see this "save the planet" garbage written on plastics, woods, metals, fabrics, stones, shaved into peoples' heads (save the planet from them!)...

PEOPLE ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET TO ADVERTISE "SAVE THE PLANET"!

You people are using vehicles! And even if you're not, the people who put together your computer DO. And even if they're not, the people who are forming the parts of your computer DO. In fact, somewhere along the line, something that you are using and even ENDORSING is doing the opposite of your fantasy.

Look... I do not believe that anyone here is actually worried about saving the planet. I believe that people either really like their "science" jobs, really like a random cause, are really gullible, or feel guilty for littering so much. There might even be other reasons I am not calculating.

I DO BELIEVE (and I'm not usually the conspiracy theorist type) that a few of the people here ARE THE VERY SCIENTISTS WHO BENEFIT FROM THE ADVERTISING.

And to you, I say: enjoy it while you can.

IMO the whole story was made up a long time ago to create a one world government.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Of course Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community and have had labels such as "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" applied to their work.

Seems like the truth has no place within scientific circles anymore.

Follow the money. No money means no research. No research means no paychecks for otherwise unneeded professions. The money comes from Politicians with agenda's. Cap and Trade means billions and eventually trillions in peoples pockets. They don't say what the Politicians want them to say they get no funding. I think it is that simple. Science has been usurped by Politics and fabulous wealth for a select few. One very powerful person with the initials A.G. comes to mind.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I believe that people either really like their "science" jobs, really like a random cause, are really gullible, or feel guilty for littering so much. There might even be other reasons I am not calculating.

Too bad! Because the reasons just might include adherence to logic and scientific method. As simple as that. As I explained in previous post, the paper cited in the OP is lacking in critical places.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Of course Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community and have had labels such as "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" applied to their work.

Seems like the truth has no place within scientific circles anymore.

Follow the money. No money means no research. No research means no paychecks for otherwise unneeded professions. The money comes from Politicians with agenda's. Cap and Trade means billions and eventually trillions in peoples pockets. They don't say what the Politicians want them to say they get no funding. I think it is that simple. Science has been usurped by Politics and fabulous wealth for a select few. One very powerful person with the initials A.G. comes to mind.

Yeah, it's bleedin' awful. Those agenda-driven politicians getting funding specifically for scientists. Like Mr Shelby (R-AL) earmarking $1.8million for the sceptics, John Christy and Roy Spencer at UAH:

The University of Alabama in Huntsville Climate Model Evaluation Project - $1.8 Million
This project will directly address the cost of energy for manufacturing, industrial, and residential electricity. This research will show how effective potential policies will be in impacting the climate and how confident one can be in their achieving the intended outcome. The University of Alabama in Huntsville will examine and evaluate climate model simulations to determine the level of performance these models achieve so that policymakers may develop a better understanding of the reliability of these forecasts.

“Given the tremendous burden that any climate change legislation would place on the U.S. economy, it is imperative that any steps are taken only after achieving reasonable certainty that they will produce the benefits necessary to justify the associated costs,” said Shelby. “Information gained from the Climate Model Evaluation Project will be of great benefit to policymakers, ensuring that they are better informed as climate legislation is debated.”

Oink Oink!

Terrible!

[edit on 28-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Ok I just want to put my 2cents on this.

Just because people understand phyics can in fact lack logic.

The world IS in fact a Open system so i do agree with that because we are connected to the rest of the "universe" .. Now.

On a small scale people say that the human race has NO effect on the Heat of the planet.

Let me point out some basic logic when dealing with this argument

NO life form on this PLANET can do what we do..

NONE .. This is a FACTOR in any calucaltion one is going to make when createing a model on heat.

IF a man can Take a lump of OIL and convert that into "FUMES" or plastics or any other "thiing"

That is changing its natural STATE

Humans DO effect the PLANET just by BEING HERE.. more so because we "as the human race"

Are terroforming our own PLANET.. and we will EVOVLE with it.. But our actions MAY indeed surpass our "evoloutionary clock"..

thats the problem.

warming is very very real weather you wish to admit it or not that is not my problem

its wrong to think its not.

6.x Billion life forms who are all GIVING off heat would effect the planet

warm blooded? we give OFF heat

put 100 people in a small room see how hot it gets?

the more people on the planet the hotter its going to get !

Originally posted by FortAnthem

A couple of German physicists have looked at the case for manmade global warming and have come to the conclusion that the concept would violate the laws of physics. I never bought into this garbage to begin with and it’s nice to see some real scientists with the backbone to stand up to the “consensus”.

"Real scientists" in whose opinion? Are the only "real scientists" the ones who write something you agree with and all the others are scam artists. Zieg fricking Heil.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Of course Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community and have had labels such as "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" applied to their work.

Seems like the truth has no place within scientific circles anymore.

Their explanation of the greenhouse effect has a HUGE FLAW. In fact it is so mind numbingly obvious I can well understand why others have labelled them as above.

Do I HAVE to explain? Are you skeptics that brainwashed you can't see the MAJOR flaw?

Guess what I'm not going to. I'll just sit here and see how dumb the skeptics really are.

I'll give you a wee clue though to fuel the raging replies I'll get : glassless analogy.

[edit on 28/1/10 by malcr]

Originally posted by malcr
Guess what I'm not going to. I'll just sit here and see how dumb the skeptics really are.

First, get a guesstimate.

Then square it.

Most deniers here don't have a clue what they're talking about. Almost like a form of human Myna Bird.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by SaturnFX
this is insane...these people are crackpots...listen to them if you want, they also just said a standard greenhouse that gardeners use...and a tarp you toss over a plant during a chill is physically impossible.

guess you can get any degree over the internet these days.

I did check their CVs. They're mathematicians, not physicists. One works with topology, one with Abelian sets. They didn't have any physicists review the paper before sending it out, nor have they ever done any earth modeling studies or research.

I've seen this happen before, where a scientist in one field decides to comment on something they feel strongly about in another field... and doesn't have the data checked by a scientist with degrees in the field they're prattling on about. They sound very authoritative to many, but to anyone with a degree in the field it's very obvious that they are not current on the subject or the issues.

Gerlich's been ranting about this for years, and has apparently gone unnoticed so he's upped the ante here. The thing actually doesn't meet the standards for a scientific paper or even a scholarly one. His bibliography is a real mess; he refers to a good 8 or more of his own papers as proof for things, cites the "Journal of Irreproduceable Results" (a scientific spoof journal -- spoof journals are very seldom acceptable in scientific papers) without listing issue or page, cites web pages with unverified claims, and gives vague sources such as a personal web page about solar energy from a non-scientist.

If I turned in a bibliography for MY classwork that looked like HIS, my professors would flunk that paper on the spot. If I tried to present it as a conference paper at a scientific conference (I'm preparing one now for a conference in March), they'd remove me from the list.

I think it's an exercise in ego by a mathematician who is frustrated abouot an issue and not a genuine study by a real physicist.

reply to post by melatonin


I'm not anti-science or funding for science in the least. That does not change the fact it is being used wrongly as a tool to line some peoples pockets while emptying others.

True, or not true, this is about money and power, not science and certainly will have almost imperceptible positive impact even if it were not.

If any of these people gave a damn, dozens of nuclear reactors would be nearing completion or completed by now. They can't oppose the only real solution available and at the same time pretend to give a damn about anything but money.

If any of them gave a damn, we would be tapping the hundreds of years supply of Natural Gas and all our vehicles would be running on LNG right this moment.

If any of them gave a damn, the billions being showered on Unions and Banks right now, would be going to fund private enterprises solutions and research.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Earth is not a closed system...the warming is coming from the sun...it is trapping rays based on the density of greenhouse gases...

the falty logic here is that they are saying earth is closed...and yes, if we didnt recieve rays from the sun, we could release all the carbon we want without it warming up.

also, if you keep a actual greenhouse without sun, it wont warm up either...

this is insane...these people are crackpots...listen to them if you want, they also just said a standard greenhouse that gardeners use...and a tarp you toss over a plant during a chill is physically impossible.

guess you can get any degree over the internet these days.

I'm not a physicist, as i'm sure you're not either, though you could be. So i'm guessing they're a little more intelligent than you or I, again, i could be wrong.
I don't know if they're right or wrong, but i'm not going to go ahead and call them crackpots and question the legitimacy of their degrees.

If other scientists repeat their findings, i'll believe them!