The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory

nasa_logo1By Alan Siddons

Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked “Radiation.” And therein lies a tale… 

Recently, I chanced upon an Atmospheric Science Educator Guide [PDF] published by NASA. Aimed at students in grades 5 through 8, it helps teachers explain how so-called “greenhouse gases” warm our planet Earth.

These guides are interesting on a number of levels, so I recommend that you look them over. But what caught my eye was this:

  • Question: Do all of the gases in our atmosphere absorb heat?
  • Answer: (Allow students to discuss their ideas. Don’t provide the answer at this time.)

Indeed, that’s a good one to think over yourself. Almost all of what we’re breathing is nitrogen and oxygen — do these gases absorb heat? Lakes and rocks absorb heat, after all, and thereby reach a higher temperature. So can nitrogen and oxygen molecules do the same?

Well, I won’t keep you hanging. After allowing students to discuss it, the instructor is instructed to give them the final verdict. 

  • Answer: No. Only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.

These are the infrared-absorbing “greenhouse gases,” of course, substances like carbon dioxide water vapor, and not nitrogen and oxygen. 

Now, is something wrong here? Most definitely, for NASA has a finger on the scale. Let’s review a few basics that NASA should have outlined.

Read the rest of this article at the American Thinker.

62 Responses to The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory

  1. Lone Wolf February 26, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    Thank you for posting this sir.

  2. Hal Groar February 26, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    This makes a lot of sense. A simple explanation of ONE reason why AGW is a complete fraud. Thanks for the post Dan!

    • Lone Wolf March 13, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

      First, I will answer some of your questions on my first email today. No, I am not holding my breath until May 16 to see if any signer of the UCS document arrives to defend their views. Frankly, they are not the type to engage in critical scientific debate. They are cowards. They would rather remain where they feel comfortable, like in front of students trying to get a good grade. Or in the company of their own social club.

      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.


      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

      • Imre December 24, 2010 at 7:14 am #

        Hi Edwin,
        I answer your comment from March 13, 2010 at 8:36 pm.
        Just a question.
        Didn’t you mean to write presence instead of absence in the last sentence of the following part?
        “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.”

        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!

  3. Neil F. AGWD/BSD February 26, 2010 at 11:50 pm #

    Wow! That is absolutely marvelous! That is a serious flaw, flaw my a**, that is a serious defect in the AGW theory. Did you hear that Mr. Vice President? Mr. The science is settled…….. is it? Appearantly not. This just goes to show that not only were lies made up about AGW, but that there is a lot that is hidden from us. Come on! Phil Jones, and James Hansen didn’t know this? If that’s the case then they are not just liars, they are stupid liars.

  4. Lone Wolf February 27, 2010 at 8:16 am #

    It’s so obvious and simple, that it leaves me with a number of questions. Why haven’t we heard this before? Where are all the skeptical scientists on this? I have sent the article to Dr. Ed Berry at, asking his explanation. I hope others will do the same for any climate scientist they may know of. I can’t help but wonder if we are missing something, even though it makes so much sense.

  5. Paul Wenum February 27, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Lone wolf, as everyone knows, as well as Neil and others, this will be dispelled as simply bunk science and never reported. If so, I may have a “Big one Elizabeth!”

  6. Rob N. Hood February 28, 2010 at 8:38 am #

    Paul- I don’t know who Elizabeth is, but that’s just tooooo much information…

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD February 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

      Rob, Paul is referencing what Redd Foxx used to say on his show Sanford and Son in the 70’s. He would feign to have a heart attack and say “This is the big one, I’m coming Elizabeth!” So what Paul means is if this gets reported he’ll have a heart attack. It’s interesting that you did not get that reference. It means you never watched Sanford and Son, (which is unlikely because if you were around back then you would know that there were only four or five channels one could watch and everybody watched Sanford and Son.) Or it means that was before your time. Which would mean that you are in your late teen’s or early 20’s. Because that show was in syndication for a long time. Which sounds about right because of your additude and your false claims of your degree.

      • Rob N. Hood March 1, 2010 at 9:09 am #

        Wrong again Neil… about me anyway. You guys are soooo anal. Gee, Neil, thanks so much for clearing that up for us. Heaven forbid anyone has a sense of humor beyond an old reference to a sit-com.

  7. paul wenum February 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Neil, I agree we are talking to walking head. circa 1988 or thereabouts assume?

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 1, 2010 at 6:31 am #

      It’s just assumption. We don’t know anything about Rob, other than what he posts here. We don’t even know if Rob is male or female, which is why I referred to him as him/her/it in one post. For all we know he is in his 70’s but just never watched TV. But I have always thought that he was a teenager just by his level of maturaty and complete lack of critical thinking. We may never know but that’s ok, it’s fun to toy with him…..or her…..whatever.

  8. Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 1, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    Now, back to the subject.
    I believe the topic of this story is an incovenient truth. One of many (I’m sure) inconvenient truths about AGW that were hidden because it makes the whole argument look bad. It’s just one of those facts that did not fit the theory, so it was discarded. I’m sure there were many scientists aware of this fact but because it was counter to the AGW it was swept under the rug just as they tried to sweep the medieval warm period under the rug with the hockey stick graph. I think it was just another lump in the rug and now that the rug has been rolled up we’re going to find out more things that were hidden. This is just one of those things. I think there will be more to come along those lines. At any rate this does not suprise me.

  9. Rob N. Hood March 1, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    Ahhh, the sane and studious sobriety of our savior. What do we know of this man, beyond what he posts here….??!! Does that statement even make any sense, at all? Think about that for a moment…. Ok, thanks… Now:

    Apparently even though I have revealed things, except for the meaningless aspect of gender, you have chosen not to believe those few admitions I have made from time to time. Instead you create your own silly vision of what and who you think I am. That is exactly what you do with everything apparently and you have consistently proven that time and again. Paul too of course.

    Does that Fact have any impact on you guys? Does it show a pattern? Yes it does, and that is why I am making that claim. Not just some seat of the pants crap like you just did above. You see there’s a difference in thinking processes here. But you won’t see it will you? You will dismiss it in some way like you always do. You guys are so boring and predictable. And illogical. And scary.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 1, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

      I did want I wanted to do. I said those things to irritate you. Success!
      Rob, I don’t care about what you think we should be thinking about. Maybe if you just tell us what you think, and leave it at that, I might not mind you so much. But what you post here is not opinion. It is agitation straight out of Rules for Radicals. I really wish you would go away, but you just won’t go! So as long as you are the gnat that you are trying to be, I will swat at you. If you want it to stop, stop posting stupid, ridiculous, irrelevent, and unwarrented messages. If you want to be part of the conversation, be part of the conversation, instead of trying to change the conversation. As long as you continue to do what you’re doing, I’m going to keep sticking it to you. Get it?

  10. paul wenum March 1, 2010 at 11:19 pm #

    Rob you are a PITA. Enough said.

  11. Fred Jackson March 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    From Wikipedia:
    With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change

    For the full list of scientific bodies, you can check here:

    This forum seems to be comprised of people who take little tidbits of information to develop conspiracy theories about how all these scientists are wrong and that they’re so stupid that they’ve missed some trivial detail that you smart folks have found. It’s classic. If it wasn’t so comical, it would truly be sad.

    • Dan McGrath March 2, 2010 at 2:58 pm #


      Thanks so much for citing that infallible source of unbiased information, the user-edited Wikipedia! I can go edit that page to say that global warming is caused by Cookie Monster’s insane, sugar-driven metabolism and no scientists refute that proven fact. We cite all sources here, aggregating news from major news agencies and scientific journals published around the world. I’d suggest you stick around for a bit and see what this site is about before posting such misguided, and obviously underinformed opinions of it.

      • Fred Jackson March 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

        Who do you turn to for “infallible unbiased information”? Fox news? Rush Limbaugh? Obviously you don’t think scientists are a source of unbiased information, so that leaves out the IPCC, National Academy of Science, and dozens of other internationally recognized scientific bodies. If you think the wikipedia article is a bunch of bull, maybe you can cite some recognized, scientific bodies that dispute anthropogenic greenhouse gases are impacting our climate. And no, the “petition project” does not qualify…

        Keep up your crack detective work, you guys. Who needs a PhD in climate sciences when we have people like you to analyze the data, poke holes in climate models, and put all those stupid, pesky scientists in their place?

        Rob N – Believes in overwhelming scientific consensus = communist? Really? Nice work McCarthy.

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 2, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

          Fred, you sound like an intelligent fellow. I have some questions for you.
          Is your opinion about AGW formed from a personal investigation of the issues, and facts surrounding the AGW theory? Or are you relying on what the IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, Nasa’s GISS, and the dozens of other internationally recognized scientific bodies tell you to think?
          How do you explain that there has been no statistically significant warming for fourteen years? (Recently admitted in statements made by Phil Jones, former director of climate studies at East Anglia University. Who resigned after the climategate scandal broke.)
          How do you reconcile the fact that the computer models relied upon by the IPCC, Nasa’s GISS, and the dozens of other internationally recognized scientific bodies, failed to predict the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for fourteen years?
          Why is it that everything that AL Gore predicted would happen has not?
          And why do you think the petition project does not matter? Do you dismiss it because they disagree with what you think? Or do you think that they just don’t know what they’re talking about?
          And last but not least, Are you involved with, or do you belong to any organization, or project that depends on the AGW theory to be true to recieve funding?
          I am no genius, sir. But it does not take a genius to do some research and find an opposing view to the current scientific dogma. That’s what I did, and I found that the people who think counter to the consensus made a hell of a lot more sense than Al Gore’s, and James Hansen’s fear mongering.
          So don’t come here and spew the consensus statements and expect no challenge, because that’s not gonna fly…… Fred.

          • Fred Jackson March 2, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

            I’m not a climate scientist and don’t pretend to be one. I’ve got degrees in Physics and Engineering and have worked with some very well respected scientists in my career. I believe in the scientific method and in the skills that these dedicated, and well educated folks possess. I’ve witnessed the peer review process and the depth of information that they analyze. That is why, when there is overwhelming consensus between scientists around the world, in all major scientific bodies involved in climate change analysis, I tend to believe it. Is it because they “tell me what to think”? Hardly. Science does not work that way. It is never black and white, but shades of grey. In this case, the leading scientific bodies on climate change are saying that there is greater than a 90% chance that humans activity is a primary driving factor in global warming. The thought that I or anyone else, for that matter, could objectively analyze the massive body of data, computer models, and papers to build a complete enough picture of climate change to make a better or more accurate estimate is simply ludicrous. You may find that “it makes a hell of a lot more sense”, but I can assure you that you have not even scratched the surface on the topic. People dedicate their entire career to tiny aspects of climate science. You can decide whether a 10% chance of being wrong makes it worth ignoring, but to insinuate that you somehow know better based on a few carefully picked datapoints is unbelievable to me.

            “No statistical warming over the last 14 years?” – The decade from 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record according to NASA and even Fox News… I guess it depends on your definition of “statistically significant”.


            Over a period of a few years, you can easily observe up and down variation of temperatures. It’s referred to as statistical variation. Standard deviation is a measure of the noise and short term variation that is present in data. When the standard deviation is high, you need to collect more data before the data becomes “statistically significant”. It’s the reason why scientists, economists, and engineers use techniques like moving averages to track long term trends in short term data that contains noise or a high standard deviation. Because we have a cold spell one Winter, or a hot spell one Summer, or even over a number of years does not mean we have warming or cooling trend of our climate. If you look through history, climate changes tend to go up and down by as much as a degree over any given decade, but maintain clear, longer-term trends over time. Because you have several down years doesn’t give you license to dismiss the overall trend or to announce the next ice age is upon us. If you actually watch Phil Jones instead of the Fox News sound bites from it you’ll get a different message.

            “Everything that Al Gore predicted would happen has not?” Any time you put “Everything” at the front of a sentence like that, you discredit yourself and your cause. I don’t even know where to begin with that as it is clearly not an accurate statement.

            Why do I not believe in the petition project? It is comprised of dentists, doctors, and self proclaimed scientists with no background in climate change whatsoever. See for yourself: I could sign it myself, but I do not pretend that I’m qualified to do so. For that matter, maybe you should sign up. You are probably more of an expert than the rest of the petitioners.

            No, AGW theory does not drive my funding…

        • Dan McGrath March 3, 2010 at 11:35 am #

          Petition Project doesn’t qualify? 31,000 scientists make a much bigger concensus than 50 or so at the IPCC and CRU, I think. How about this:
          Professor Lindzen’s Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory

          • Fred Jackson March 3, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

            If you needed open heart surgery would you be okay with having a climatologist perform it for you? The same logic is why I don’t want a doctor, veterinarian, or dentist telling me what’s wrong or not wrong with our climate. The “31000 scientists” is a list of self-proclaimed “scientists” with no verification of qualifications, memberships, degrees, or scientific credentials. Kind of like wikipedia, except with no editors or independent review…

            As far as Professor Lindzen… Again you can take single data points or sound bites from individual scientists and construe it any way you please. Any time you don’t look at the big picture, you are only serving your own pre-conceived notions. You can simply ignore the facts that don’t match your theory and embrace those that do, which seems to be the overarching theme of this site. For every Professor Lindzen, there are dozens of others with their own data and analysis. But of course you don’t mention those here, do you? If I’m wrong, maybe you can point me to some…

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

            I don’t know how you did that. There is usually a reply button at the end of each post so people can reply. So I will reply above you instead.
            As far as the youtube video demonizing Dr. Seitz and the petition project, It had me wondering about it for a minute or two. But, being curious, as I am, I did a little more research and found this: I don’t know that much about the petition project per se, but after reading that I was able to pretty much dismiss that video as an attack piece. Besides, do you really think that the reason I am sceptical about AGW is because of the petition project? I became sceptical the moment Al Gore said “The debate is over, the science is settled.” Just because I don’t have any high fallutin degree, or a purple pimp hat, does not mean that I do not do any research.
            Now, your argument about taking single data points and sound bites can be argued in the opposing view as well, so that is not a good argument. And accusing us of confirmation bias is standard, and can also be leveled at you, also not a good argument.
            And just so you don’t feel shortchanged, here are a couple of things I think you should read.
            There is a lot more where that came from. Let me know if you want the source.

          • Dan McGrath March 5, 2010 at 10:49 am #

            I think the comment threads only allow like 4 reply levels. It would indent too far after a while.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 5, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

            That splains it. Thanks!

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

            Weird, no reply button.

        • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

          No Fred- it was an attempt at humor. I’ve been called that on this site. And you will too if you stick around.

  12. Rob N. Hood March 2, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Yeah, nice try Fred. Go spread your communism elsewhere. It will make you no friends here…

    And Neil, give it a rest. Nothing I’ve posted in any way shape or form has staisfied you, or your elderly side-kick Paul. That’s just you being disengenuous, again. And my anaysis of your statement was made at what you posted at face-value. None of my posts EVER are created to trick you in such a juvenile manner. Oh well, a person tries to be civil and honest, and this is what one gets from the Right.

    And you only “THINK” that what I post has little or nothing to do with this issue. But again you either lie or are too dim to see it, or just don’t want to try and refute, logically and rationally, what it is I have posted. You have yet to do that, and I suspect never will. You just don’t like it, that’s all. It’s true some of it is a stretch, but hey, sorry for stretching your mind from time to time. I realize it must hurt.

    It is amazing how much I do bother you. It’s true I would have stopped a long time ago except for good ol’gluttons for punishment you and Paul are. Again, I suggest some Anger Management for you and, for Paul….well, I don’t want to unkind to the old guy. Oh and ha ha, good one, above, yep you got me!!!


    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 2, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

      Rob that is just BS. Do you really believe what you type? You’re about as civil and honest as a knife in the back.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 2, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

        Ok Rob. This is a recent post from you in the post about the EPW investigation into glimategate.

        “Paranoid and grandiose. Hmmm, sounds familar… Who else in history had these issues? Many actually, famous, or rather infamous actually.

        I noticed a 180 degree turn into nastiness in this country after Reagan took office. From then on I knew it was every man for himself.

        All that capitalism produces is mostly a glut of useless crap. People become agitated and stressed out from all the choices they “have” to make. Constant advertising to tell you a product is good and you need it. And so much technology people don’t talk to one another anymore. They talk at each other.

        Jesus was a socialist. Everything He did was in service to the people. The average people should have kept Him alive, but the elites of His day wanted Him dead.”

        Now maybe I am too stupid, and dim to figure out what you mean by this. So I’d like to give you an opportunity to explain how this statement has anything to do with the EPW investigation into climategate. Break it down for me brother. Just what am I to glean from this? What pearls of wisdom are supposed to materialize in my mind from this? What is the lesson master? Who’s talking at who?

        • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

          Even when I have done that it makes no difference. Most of the time it is VERY obvious, so I don’t break it down to early ed level for ya. It’s not like you are completely stupid, but you are blinded by deep-seated biases and brainwashing. I have spelled it out, but even as Jesus knew, people learn much better when they have to think about it. Most of His teachings were parables.

          Of course I am not comparing my self to Jesus. Just making a point.

          I have actually noted areas where we seem to agree or very close to it. But it unfortunately hasn’t done any good as far as unity against those who are in power and manipulate us for their benefit. I bagan posting here thinking it might. Kind of as an experiment. I can only conclude that you and others on this site (not all, but most) are narrow-minded extremists. It is you who won’t budge on anything. That’s all. I have indicated that I leave a opening in my mind that you may be correct about the global warming issue. Not with who might behind such a grand scheme exactly, of course, but that it indeed may be a scam of some sort by the elite. Because they are capable of grand things unfortunately.

          I hope this response satisfies you, but I have a feeling it won’t. Sela…

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

            Really? Well I guess that I’m just an idiot, or you really suck at communication. Which one do you think, I think?

    • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

      Actually, that was a good post above Fred. Now just because you are disagreeing with these guys they are pretending in their own right-wing fairy-land mentality that we are the same person. Dan would not allow that. Keep up the good work.

      • Dan March 4, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

        Correct. I suspected that Fred might be an alter-ego of someone’s and checked IP addresses. There’s no reason to think that Fred is anyone other than who he says he is.

  13. Paul Wenum March 2, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Sincerely believe he believes in what he types. Who were his professors?

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 2, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

      Can you believe that? He turns on a dime and accuses me of doing what he does! It just amazes me.

    • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

      Mother Russia has excellent intelligencia 😉

    • Rob N. Hood March 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

      And Paul, you don’t sincerely beleive what you type?! Does the word hypocrite even register at all with you?

  14. paul wenum March 2, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Neil as well as others, I’m so amazed at the disconnect today due to lack of knowledge or lack or caring. or both. I don’t predict doom but unless this country as citizens get together and understand what is going on other than “reality shows, Leno coming back, the newest I-pod” et-al, we are all in serious trouble. Rob is the least of my worries, and a bad rash that will go away, if not, who cares and I know Neil that you may agree, or I assume that you do. When is reality going to hit home? Let me, as others know because we are concerned not only about the alleged BS on “Gore’s Global Warming” but Cap N Trade, Health Care reform crafted by neophites, Tax increases, $7 gas, reconciliation (Nuclear option), borrow, borrow, borrow and spend. When will the average American wake up??? In my own humble opinion when it is too late. Enough said.

    • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

      But Paul, we agree that this country is going to hell. Can’t we start there and work together? Apparently you would refuse to do so. Is that rational or even sensible? No it isn’t. People like you actually help perpetuate the status quo. So give the lectures a rest until you can cooperate like a real citizen and not a narrow-minded zealot.

      You want your country back? So do I. But “back” from whom? Sure, we have our differences, but these are distractions from the central political issues of our time about which, I think, we agree. We both support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We both agree that the wealth produced cooperatively by workers, investors, educators and government in the national economy should be fairly distributed. We both agree that the government of the United States, in particular the Congress, belongs to the people, not to corporations and most assuredly not to trans-national corporations. And we both believe in free markets and open competition, both of which are subverted by the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the very wealthy.

      We have come a long way from the ideals of the founding of our “democratic” republic, and it will be a long and arduous struggle to get our country back.
      Will you join me and other so-called “liberals” in this effort? And if not, please explain to me why not?

  15. Cubanshamoo March 3, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Fred and Rob are not the same writer, hummm…. look at their style? I think Rob found a supporter in himself!!!!

    • Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

      Paranoid boob.

    • Dan March 4, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

      Fred is just Fred.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

      No, I’ve been going back and forth with Rob for a long time. Fred is not Rob. Nothing like him.

  16. Steve Morris March 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Couple problems I see right off the bat. First off, Radiation is the only source of energy to heat the Earth’s surface, however the Earth cools within the Troposphere via Radiation, Convection, and Evaporation in order of increasing magnitude. Once the Tropopause is reached, Radiation becomes the only ‘exit’. This is the primary flaw with the AGW hypothesis and is most likely the root of most people’s misunderstanding of the GHE. A thermodynamic system is the Sum of all the heating and cooling, not just the radiative cooling which is the least efficient means to cool any object.

    Secondly, while N2 and O2 do not absorb outgoing IR, they do absorb heat (energy) via conduction from the surface and convective collisions and these two properties of nature are responsible for the temperature of 99% of our atmosphere. The energy within a cubic meter of air, ~372,000 joules at 14 C, mostly resides in the N2 and O2. Just because they do not absorb low energy IR, does not mean they are without temperature. Note a cubic meter of dry air at sea level only contains about .7 grams of CO2 while N2 and O2 in the same volume have a mass of 1.298 kg.

    Most importantly, Convection and Evaporation are King below 10,000 meters. Most of the energy that is transfered up to about 10,000 meters is done via Convection and Evaporation. For example it takes ~23,000,000 joules to evaporate 1 square meter of water 1 cm deep. There is approximately 13 Trillion metric tons of water in the atmosphere at any given moment and it is recycled about every 10 days. This requires ~30 Sextillion ( 1 million trillion) joules to evaporate that much water every 10 days. CO2 is said to only ‘trap’ 2 W/m^2.

    Even if you trap all the outgoing radiation, there is nothing to impede Convection and Evaporation. In fact, as a surface temp increases, so does Radiation, Convection, and Evaporation introducing a negative Feedback that AGW Advocates conveniently ignore.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2010 at 12:37 am #

      Your last name is Morris. Like Philip-Morris, so that must mean that you are a plant from big tobbacco! Here to perpetuate the global warming deniers talking points, no doubt. Because if the planet warms more people will smoke. Murderer! Murderer! You make people smoke from their tracheotomy incisions.

      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.

  17. Paul Wenum March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    I know who “Fred” as well as Robbie is and it will go no further. Now on to defeating Cap N Trade!

  18. Rob N. Hood March 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Another paranoid boob.

  19. Lone Wolf March 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Thanks Steve, that certainly helps.

  20. Lone Wolf March 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    I think Steve’s post enforces the theory for less warming due to the absence of sun spots.

  21. paul wenum March 5, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Rob, you mention cooperatives. Sounds socialistic to me. In my own opinion and nobody else’s. I simply want our government, (You and ME) to get off employing 60% of the US population and just do what our constitution states they should do. If we continue to tax and spend we will be no less than a third world country. As to Climate change, Cap N Trade? At the rate our government is heading/spending, upcoming inflation etc. this website will not really matter. That, is my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

  22. Rob N. Hood March 5, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    The Repubs have spent more, created bigger government and bigger deficits than the Dems in the last 30 years. It’s a fact. Neither Party is good any more. We need a new system that empowers us not them. Don’t keep fighting for the status quo, which truly is what many on the Right are doing whether they want to admit it or not. That is simply ridiculous at this point in our history, and dooms us even further.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

      Oh, so that’s the hidden flaw in greenhouse theory. Who knew?

  23. Rob N. Hood March 6, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    It explains, Neil, all the contradictory information/propaganda/misinformation that we all get and have to try and decipher. Real democracy would help solve a lot of our current problems. Maybe you aren’t interested in that concept. Seems like you are, sometimes…

    • Hal Groar March 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

      Lets get through the propaganda of the left on sea levels/glaciers/violent storms first, maybe derail cap’n’trade and open up a little bit of the Gulf for exploration while we are at it. Then we’ll work on the two partys.

  24. Fred Jackson March 9, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    Yeah, Neil. If Dr. Seitz himself denies that he was a paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry on a phone call from an AGWD, then it must be true. I mean you read it on the internet after all (a conservative blog, I might add). Glad to see that you only settle for the highest burden of proof. No point in looking at the actual work that Dr. Seitz did, or the conclusions he reached… The fact that doctors, veterinarians, and other non-climate informed folks can sign on at will is published right on the petition website, as is the fact that there is absolutely no verification of submissions. But you already proved it to yourself, so why bother looking.

    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.

  25. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    Thanks Fred. Keep up the hammering. But maybe not. It sees to be a grand waste of time and effort. It’s funny too, because the type people on this site already won, not only this battle but the war, and most of all the battles between Right and Left, since a long time ago too. But they truly think they are victims and underdogs. That is how out-of-touch and extremist they are. If it wasn’t so sad and frightening is would be very funny.

    • Rob N. Hood March 16, 2010 at 9:12 am #

      Actually we all are victims of a grand scam, and we know it, live it, everyday. So we have that in common. The real problem is who we define as the oppressor/s. THAT is the key to freeing the slaves, and the masters hold the key. They’ve got much money and power to manipulate us in many different ways, and they do. If we all could sove that issue, then we’d have a fighting chance. But I’m afraid sites like these, while inclusive, do nothing but assist in maintaining the corrosive status quo.

  26. paul wenum March 17, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    What is a “4 rely level?” Just curious.

  27. paul wenum March 17, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    What is a “4 reply level?” Just curious.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.