Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Running on bluff now, are we?

Did you even read the paper? And you are claiming Arrel is bluffing this?
Yeti — (archived)

I don't do Physics, but I thought the paper bad enough to skate the line between fraud and pseudoscience. And thats even only after giving it a once-over.

First off, trying to deny the 'greenhouse effect' because the earth is not a glass enclosed envelope is laughable, but to then claim that there is no 'physics' behind the effect is silly. There is tones of science, peer reviewed and accepted, going back decades on IR opacity and its macro effects. There are also plenty of 'calculations' (the excessive and misplaced use of that word in the paper should be throwing alarms in your head like a Johannes post) for measuring the temperature of a planet.

The paper makes claims about conclusions drawn from misleading terminology (the misleading terms 'greenhouse gas' and 'greenhouse effect' ). But the author has to simply ignore the recent history of climatology to make this claim- which is odd, because given his fondness for sourcing materials from the 18 and early 19 hundreds, you would think the author would be all about history. The term 'greenhouse' was coined to explain the effect of IR opacity and reflection in the atmosphere to the scientifically illiterate, not an ad-hoc unfounded unscientific assumption that we live in a glass house- which seems to be the authors only real point (IE, that we don't live in a glass house).

Quite honestly, you are an Engineer- I'm just a Logician and Programmer. YOU shouldn't need me pointing out the triviality and sillyness of this paper, and one would think you would know what you were talking about before you claimed that a Physicist was running on bluff by laughing at it.

This is the problem. This is why this is Politics and not Science. The very fact that you took this seriously without popping the hod and giving it a look (as science entails that you must) or applying even basic skepticism (as science entails that you must), or inspecting the references for timeliness and relevance (again, as science entails you must) indicates to me that you are not looking at this as a scientist looking at a scientific argument, but rather as a political hack looking at a political issue. IE- this paper is like a clever editorial by some blogger that 'sounds right' so you throw it in the mix.

But its not Science. The paper is crap.

Essentially, I would say: Shame on you for having fallen for this.

Yeti

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (128 posts)