As an engineer, I *do* know quite a bit of math and physics, but like most of us, don’t have a lot of free time to analyze a the data and verify any conclusions presented.

Tell me about it.  When I first read Dr. Miskolczi’s paper, I spent two weeks, three hours a day (9PM, after I put my kids to sleep, till midnight) parsing the math and rederiving the equations.  If I can’t derive it then I don’t understand it. I was skeptical at first because his use of the viral theorem was novel but I became convinced as I poured over the equations.

Without a peer review

I know that you are speaking generally. “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” was of course peer reviewed.

 
, it’s tough to take any paper at face value – just because the AGWers try to pull underhanded tricks (e.g. ‘peer’ reviewed and referenced articles which reference each other in a circular reference!) it’s something I’d like to try and avoid. Possibly a shortcoming in any political/social battle since facts are, in fact, irrelevant.

This is why I prefer for any paper’s reported results to be independently verified or refuted.  I am very puzzled by the lack of refutation.  I concluded that this paper must scare the daylights out of the AGW establishment. “Let sleeping dogs lay” must be their hope.  I ain’t sleeping.

–Mike Ramsey

As an engineer, I *do* know quite a bit of math and physics, but like most of us, don’t have a lot of free time to analyze a the data and verify any conclusions presented.

Without a peer review, it’s tough to take any paper at face value – just because the AGWers try to pull underhanded tricks (e.g. ‘peer’ reviewed and referenced articles which reference each other in a circular reference!) it’s something I’d like to try and avoid. Possibly a shortcoming in any political/social battle since facts are, in fact, irrelevant.

There are a few bloggers/physicists who tend to refute the paper, indicating several flaws, so tends to (unfortunately) indicate that it’s avoided because it isn’t worth reading.

I don’t see how you get from your premise to your conclusion. 

When I googled “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” I found a critic of the paper at http://www.wikichecks.com/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-planetary-atmospheres/

Neal mentions correspondences with Dr. Miskolczi but fails to publish Dr. Miskolczi’s responses; we only see one side of the argument.  Neal also fails to understand the application of Kirchhoff’s Law to atmospheres.  A readable explanation can be found here http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-law-miskolczi-part-3/

and here http://www.met.utah.edu/tgarrett/5210_07/Radiation/LTE.pdf

I can do sum (sic) math myself but that’s a bit heavy duty for me.

A common complaint.  But doing physics without math is much, much harder to do.  Math makes it easy!  Your high school teacher wasn’t lying.  :-)

–Mike Ramsey

Both of these were intended to be cautionary tales about very undesirable futures. Unfortunately, it appears they have both instead been used as templates for our civilization.

No hyperbole required. SO MANY of the concepts of Orwell and Huxley’s nightmare futures are currently being pushed on us that it’s impossible to not see the goal. My dad (who is 72) tells me he read Brave New World in school and remembers that the majority of it just sounded ridiculous. Today, not so much.

But I suppose that kind of speculation is just “conspiracy theory”…

Sorry for the confusion. Mencken wasn’t referring to either Gore Sr or Jr. He made that crack back in the 1930′s (I think) when Gore Jr wasn’t even a gleam in Gore Sr’s eye. I should have separated the sentences into paragraphs to make it clearer.

Mencken was just talking about people in general and no one in particular although I wish that he was still around to look at the AGW weirdness today. I’m sure he would have a few even more stinging remarks about human intelligence.

It’s what Smokey describes:
If the AGW fraudsters had told the truth about the very minuscule effect of a minor trace gas on the planet, then any conjecture about atmospheric CO2 would have been an inconsequential footnote in a few obscure journals…

Hold their feet to the fire. When someone says “deteriorating atmosphere,” remind them: No, that’s just your old CO2=AGW claim, morphing into your latest cry of “Wolf!!” We don’t buy it. You have cried “Wolf!” too many times: Coral bleaching. Hurricanes. Malaria. Sea level. Ocean acidification. Receding glaciers. The ozone hole. Greenland melting. Nuclear winter. Global warming. And every single time it’s turned out to be a false alarm.

The politicians, rain-makers and their apostles will simply move-on to the next great scam.

All of which means in Madison Ave. speak – “our current campaign has failed.” And their best professional spinning advice is to back out of the quagmire without looking like thieves, liars or crooks. Good luck with that.

From Frank K. (16:38:08) :

Remember how fast Cryosphere Today responded to George Will? Where are they now when the President states:

Where’s the press release? Where’s the op ed? Where are Mark Serreze and Walt Meier?

They have become, perhaps unknowingly, appartchiki, infected with the worm of corruption that without remedial attention will continue to grow.

It is essential that those of us who have resisted this infection and continue to debate the issues on their merits and not their political ramifications, continue to fight the good fight. The first weapon in this fight, cited by several posters above, is never let the AGW proponents forget that their whole argument is based on CO2=AGW. All of the money-making schemes, the real driver of the AGW movement are predicated on this identity. Live by the hockey-stick and die by the hockey stick.

The shift to the designation “climate change” is a backdoor escape hatch. Consider the literal implication that man significantly influences “climate change” and that this influence has so far been mostly bad. This implies that man can control the climate. That notion gives birth to many ludicrous rationalizations, not the least of which is that we can avoid the specter of unintended consequences. It requires that some agency determine what is ideal…warmer, colder, wetter, drier? And if one were to alter the climate to an ideal(!?) condition in one location, what does that do for the rest of the World?

The whole concept is absurd.

A long time ago it became obvious to many long-time climate scientists, especially those with no skin in the game, that the CO2=AGW identity was untenable. It quickly became obvious that the reason for promoting this hypothesis was as simple as that seminal quote from W. Mark Felt, AKA “Deep Throat” in All the President’s Men:

“Follow the Money”.

Doing a quick Google doesn’t really give any answers to this. There appears to be few scientific (peer) reviews of the paper, which either means (a) it’s not worth reviewing, (b) it’s pointedly being ignored, or (c) some other reason.

There are a few bloggers/physicists who tend to refute the paper, indicating several flaws, so tends to (unfortunately) indicate that it’s avoided because it isn’t worth reading. I can do sum (sic) math myself but that’s a bit heavy duty for me.

The googlesphere has really dumbed people down – they now live in sound bytes(tm) and a Twitteresque state of mind. If you can’t say it in 140 characters, it’s not worth my time…

Well that’s a little unfair. They also made a lot of money in the awl bidness.

“Robert Kral (09:14:57) : This is straight out of George Orwell.”
And “Kirk W. Hanneman (20:10:15) :

Ah, so we come to newspeak. It goes along nicely with the doublethink already well entrenched in this debate (cooling = warming, more ice = warming, etc.).”

For those who have not yet mastered “Newspeak”, it would be instructive to hear George Orwell lay out its principles.

In this portion of his essay, I simply substituted “Ecospeak” for “Newspeak”, and “ ArtGlow” (Anthropogenic Global Warming) for “Ingsoc” (English Socialism)

The purpose of EcoSpeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of ArtGlow, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when EcoSpeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of ArtGlow — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

To give a single example – The word free still existed in EcoSpeak, but could only be used in such statements as “The dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive.

EcoSpeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

The total essay is listed at:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/