Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Greenhouse

Having now had a chance to look at the commentary and the paper. I agree with you, John. This
paper should never have made it through the peer review process. As, I think, most of us know, the
peer review process leaves a lot to be desired. With this paper, people took the time to give this a
proper review and posted their thoughtful comments online. It would be nice if people also did this with
the more standard climate science papers as well. People tend to dismiss quickly anything that runs
contrary to their opinion, rather than taking a closer look.

On 14 Oct 2010 at 8:15, A. John Mallinckrodt wrote:

I note that this article has received a fair amount of approbation in the anti global warming community. Does it seem a little telling to anyone else that these folks (with their vocal disdain for the overwhelming consensus of experts) could embrace such a transparently ludicrous item?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

I wrote:

James Espinosa writes:

A very few on this list might be interested in reading the article: "Falsification of the
Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," by Gerhard Gerlich
and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

I would certainly hope so! (Emphasis on the "very.") If anyone *is* interested in reading
beyond the abstract (which claims that the greenhouse effect is strictly ruled out by the
second law of thermodynamics) they have way too much time on their hands.
Forum for Physics Educators

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3196 - Release Date: 10/14/10