Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

Henning wrote: I don’t follow this discussion because it disgusts me, but there’s a quite fitting article on Ars Technica:

When science clashes with beliefs? Make science impotent.

Okay, I’m telling you “read this”, whilst not reading what you’ve written above. Yes I know, it’s quite ignorant, but that’s how I am. And it’s how everyone here is…

LOL. That’s universal ad hominem hostility, then?

I took a degree in psych, and any resemblance between that field and science is coincidental. It’s not entirely BS, but there are more mutually exclusive “schools” of thought than any 5 other fields combined, even including Sociology.

Climatology isn’t even a field, much less a science. It’s a conglomeration of inept excerpts from a dozen other fields, pastiched into demands for outrageous efforts with minuscule chance of having any effect to solve a problem which they speculate may exist but have no hope of proving is real.

Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [defined as an evidence-free preliminary to a hypothesis which proposes pass-fail tests which might eventually qualify it as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [i.e., in advance] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].

“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.