Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics

[Dementia_Madness]

Greenhouse Gases No Cause of Thermal Effect
The German analyst argues that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases.Therefore, he argues, it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.

Pointedly, NASA now seems to tacitly agree on this matter; as it no longer shows any more such "backradiation" in its relevant graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth.

Thus, Thieme and colleagues more confidently assert that the thermal conditions in Earth's and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 - at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health - would endanger neither the climate nor mankind.

Read more at Suite101: Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-violates-fundamentals-of-physics#ixzz0temtKSJP

Greenhouse Gas Terminology Incorrect
Sceptics like Thieme argue that to avoid further misunderstanding, the terms 'greenhouse effect’ and ‘greenhouse gases’ should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere as there is no correlation between the affects seen in a greenhouse and that perceived in the atmosphere. He states, “It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2.”

Sceptics of the greenhouse gas theory insist that the warmer such gases become the more quickly they convey heat away (via convection) from Earth's surface toward space. Thus, we may conclude that all objects above 0 degrees Kelvin radiate; that there is no heat transfer from a cooler body (i.e. Earth’s troposphere) to a warmer body (Earth's surface). Warming by the troposphere is not possible.

Read more at Suite101: Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-violates-fundamentals-of-physics#ixzz0ten2HaVW

[Flummoxed Lummox]

[Dementia_Madness]

Actually FL if you understand true history, The Bible taught people that the earth was a globe long before "pagan" scientists and peoples became convinced that it was flat....only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth (many of them pagan converts who held that belief before conversion).

Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn't teach it.

Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.

In his book The Discoverers, author Daniel Boorstin stated:

“A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia… afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers.”1

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the “official Christian viewpoint.”

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

BTW that is a great responce to REAL science and understanding physics

[Flummoxed Lummox]

REAL science

 

[Dementia_Madness]

I guess you are right the fundamental laws of physics are not REAL science...my bad

LINK

“‘Denialism’ has no place in scientific debate,” my letter in Nature Medicine

The key sentence in the letter is this, “‘Denialist’ is an ad hominem argument, the meaning of which is defined entirely by the user, intended to discredit the accused without evidence.” The “anti-denialism” campaign is, to use a word I rarely employ, a literal conspiracy–albeit something of an open one in that it’s openly pushed by Chris Mooney. (Inset.) The purpose is two-fold.

1) Brand those with the “wrong” scientific views not just as “kooks” or “nuts” but as literally pathological. This from a recent article in The New Scientist:

Instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. ‘They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder [according to one quoted "expert"]‘ “including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance.” The “expert” goes on to say, “Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory.

2) Lump those whose ideas you wish to defame with people who truly are whacko. Thus there’s no difference between not accepting the party line on global warming and believing vaccines cause autism or HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. It is truly insidious and we’re going to be hearing a lot more from these people.