>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:04:30 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>> On 06/30/2012 07:48 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:51:44 -0500, Bill Ward
>>>>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:45:01 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:55:37 -0500, Bill Ward
>>>>>>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:02:51 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:58:02 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>>>>>> <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>>>>>>>> On 06/30/2012 09:44 AM, my fake smile wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then the globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to
>>>>>>>>>>>> blame anthropogenic greenhouse gases for this warming. That
>>>>>>>>>>>> is where they lose me, at least for now.

>>>>>>>>>>> "The buildup of carbon dioxide causes radiation from our solar
>>>>>>>>>>> system's sun to become trapped in our atmosphere. This
>>>>>>>>>>> radiation is in the form of intense heat"

>>>>>>>>>>> --https://sites.google.com/site/changethepipeforabetterfuture/
>>>>>> research

>>>>>>>>>> I fully understand the concept of the greenhouse effect, in
>>>>>>>>>> fact it is that effect which makes life possible on earth. I am
>>>>>>>>>> simply not convinced that CO2 is the big bad boogyman everyone
>>>>>>>>>> is cp;aiming it to be.

>>>>>>>>>> Ask yourself this question. What "greenhouse gas" causes the
>>>>>>>>>> majority of the earth's greenhouse effect?

>>>>>>>>> Your question shows that you do not understand the problem.

>>>>>>>>> Any significant change in any greenhouse gas will change the
>>>>>>>>> temperature of earth.

>>>>>>>> Actually, no.  It's the LWIR optical depth of the atmosphere that
>>>>>>>> counts.  It remained constant while the surface was heating
>>>>>>>> during the warming of the late 20th century.

>>>>>>>> Miskolczi writes about it here:

>>>>>>>> <http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503> (Miskolczi E&E
>>>>>>>> 2010 paper on optical depth)

>>>>>>>> "The greenhouse effect is here monitored without the superfluous
>>>>>>>> complications of AOGCM climate models. The present method shows
>>>>>>>> directly whether the global average infrared absorption
>>>>>>>> properties of the atmosphere are changing or not.

>>>>>>>> "In general, if there has been global warming due to any cause,
>>>>>>>> its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of
>>>>>>>> the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate
>>>>>>>> observations assessed by calculations of the absorption
>>>>>>>> properties.

>>>>>>>> "The present results show an apparent warming associated with no
>>>>>>>> apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in
>>>>>>>> absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming."

>>>>>>>> If you can read and understand the paper, you'll find it well
>>>>>>>> worth your while.  If you can't, and must simply take the word of
>>>>>>>> a scientist, Miskolczi is one of the most experienced and highly
>>>>>>>> qualified in the field.

>>>>>>> Why did he publish that paper in a low quality (others rarely
>>>>>>> reference works published in it) journal like Energy &
>>>>>>> Environment?

>>>>>> I take it you can't understand it?  The facts don't change
>>>>>> according to where the paper is published.  But to answer your
>>>>>> question, at the time, the Hockey Team had the previously respected
>>>>>> journals under control. No one with different views could get
>>>>>> anything published.  See the climategate emails.  Or are you one of
>>>>>> those who try to deny climategate ever happened?

>>>>> What facts? The model was badly designed and the paper was published
>>>>> in a marginal journal. The funding came from some AGW deniers
>>>>> (really from the coal and gas & oil folks).

>>>> You know this how?

>>> I read the paper referenced above.

>> Care to cite the passage or reference that substantiates your claims
>> regarding the funding?
>> Or is that just another half assed assumption because you don't like
>> their conclusions?

>Better to ask if he is qualified to pass such judgment.