How cute. A single, solitary physics paper is making all the right-wing rounds because it questions the greenhouse theory.
What standing in the field of atmospheric science does this paper have? Is it considered whacky? Does it make a defensible argument in the field? Are the authors taken seriously? Are they paid by the oil industry? I'd have to be a physicist myself to know, and I'm not.
The conclusion of this paper seems to be utterly at odds with institutions such as the National Academy of Science and NASA. Why would anyone automatically assume it's correct and these other institutions are wrong? Would it be because the paper agrees with their pre-existing ideology?
Science is always questioning itself--that's one of its strengths. If this paper makes sense and defensible arguments, it will overturn fundamental conclusions regarding how planets' atmospheres work. It will render unexplicable the temperatures measured on the surfaces of planets.
I tend to be skeptical about such scientific revolutions. I'm too conservative to jump on the bandwagon at the issuance of a single paper, especially when it regards such a politically wraught issue.
p.s. Palerider, as for your offer of "let's talk", since you don't even understand how a greenhouse works, I'm sure that would be a waste of time.
