It makes sense that way, and accords to the first 2 sentences.
I probably won’t follow your website, so please drop me an email if you post your answer here.
You can write in scientific terms. I have a PhD in physics, too.

Thanks for scientifically debunking propaganda. It’s a courageous act.

Merry Christmas!
Imre

Nevertheless, I feel my challenge will help our effort. Henceforth, anytime a signer of the UCS document makes some outlandish claim, we can simply ask why they did not run their quaint idea by the best climate scientists in the world before they attempt to brainwash the public and influence public policy.

Second, and the real purpose of this email, I have included below my response the the invitation by the American Physical Society (APS) to its members to comment on its climate change statement. This invitation resulted from the “Open Letter to the APS” signed by now over 200 physicists. This letter is on my website and also here

You can read other responses to the APS on this site as well.

I stated my response in the form of ten key points, as you can read below. Tell me if I have made the physics clear enough for public understanding.

Sincerely,

Edwin X Berry, PhD
Atmospheric Physicist

______________________________________________________

To the American Physical Society regarding its 2007 Climate Change Statement.

How I wish Richard Feynman were still with us. Let’s look at the earth’s heat flow from the viewpoint of physics rather than from media and IPCC propaganda.

First, the heat that does not get to the earth’s surface cannot heat the earth. A one percent change in cloud cover overwhelms the carbon dioxide effect claimed by the IPCC. It is absurd to assume the IPCC’s hypothesis to manipulate the earth’s temperature is free to operate in the absence of changing cloud cover.

Second, there is no sound physical basis for assuming doubling carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere in the absence of clouds will increase surface temperature. Any transfer of the earth’s surface heat to air, whether by contact or by capture of earth radiation, will help the atmosphere move heat upward by convection. Surface temperatures of earth and Venus can be simply explained by the normal adiabatic lapse rates applied to the composition of their atmospheres without resort to a carbon dioxide “greenhouse” effect.

Third, the concept of a carbon dioxide “heat blanket” is unphysical. Air heated by more carbon dioxide does not remain fixed in place like insulation. Warmer air goes up. As it goes up it cools. The absence of the “hot spot” suggests this simple effect dominates the so-called greenhouse effect.

Fourth, no data shows more carbon dioxide causes temperature rise. All data show temperature change leads carbon dioxide change in all time scales ranging from a few months to 1000 years.

Fifth, the IPCC hypothesis as calculated by climate models makes incorrect predictions. This falsifies the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis.

Sixth, data show that one-year of human carbon dioxide emissions is absorbed by nature in 16 days. There is no data to show carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be significantly different today if humans did not exist.

Seventh, temperature has been rising at a fairly constant rate since the depth of the Little Ice Age in 1650. It is absurd to blame the temperature rise since 1950 on human carbon dioxide when this warming rate has not changed since 1650.

Eighth, no data show that the earth’s temperatures today are outside the bounds of natural historical temperature variations. And no data show that the earth’s carbon dioxide concentration today is outside historical values.

Ninth, no one has demonstrated that the earth’s ocean-atmosphere system, composed of uncountable, complex, irreversible processes, can in any way go unstable by man’s adding a small amount of carbon dioxide molecules. The fact that we are here today is evidence that our ocean-atmosphere system is stable.

Tenth, data show that more carbon dioxide helps rather than endangers the earth and its inhabitants. There is no basis for claims that a warming earth has or will cause any significant undesirable effects on life. By contrast, there is overwhelming evidence that the proposed political solutions to the non-problem of climate change will cause significant detrimental effect on human life and freedom.

Edwin X Berry, PhD
Atmospheric Physicist

Climate Physics LLC, 439 Grand Ave #147, Bigfork, MT 59911, USA

Thanks for illustrating my point… If it supports your case, you’ll embrace it no matter how little substance is behind it. You are searching high and low for any tidbit of information that supports your preconceived notions. It makes it easy to understand why you don’t like scientists, whose job is to weigh all the available data.

From your comment: “taking single data points and sound bites can be argued in the opposing view as well, so that is not a good argument.” That would certainly be true if the two sides of the argument were anywhere near a factual balance, which you would know is not true if you actually looked at the body of science instead of reading conservative, spoon-fed blogs with your spare time… Start by reading the latest IPCC report. That will give you a taste of the stuff you are choosing to ignore.

Rob N. Hood – Sorry I didn’t pick up on your sarcasm. The communist comment was something I expected when I posted my comment… As was the conspiracy theory that we’re evil twins. The only two non-scientists that don’t agree with AGWDs…

All this said, I do have to hand it to you Dan… I was fully expecting my comments to be discarded before they hit the light of day. Bravo for allowing a real discussion to take place and not adopting a lynch mob mentality.

Sorry, just illustrating the kind of things that people just make up from few to no facts at all. Just like they did to Dr. Seitz.
I like what you’re saying and it falls into what I said in a recent post about the many hidden truths that are out there that are conveniently swept under the rug, deflected, misrepresented, or just outright ignored.
Also your last point is why calling it “greenhouse” effect is is an entirely inaccurate description of the process.