[sarcasm]Oh, no doubt NASA and the National Acadamy of Science and the University of Florida (links I've posted in this thread) agree but they just haven't gotten around to updating all their websites.[/sarcasm]
As for asking me what I agree or disagree with in a paper about atmospheric physics is like asking me what I think about a paper on...atmospheric physics. I'm not a physicist. So I'm not going to presume that I can critique such a paper.
Where does that leave me? It leaves me dependent upon my common sense and non-scientist's viewpoint of where science is today regarding scientific issues. This viewpoint is not authoritative, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's uninformed.
For example, if I see solid institutions like NASA using the greenhouse effect in order to explain global warming, I'm going to weigh that far more heavily than some random paper floating around the right-wing blogosphere.
If such a fundamental natural mechanism, the theory of which has been in place since the 1890s, is actually utterly flawed, and therefore our explanations of planetary tempertures must be tossed out the window, I'm sure I would have been made aware of it by now.
It would have made the Science section of the NYT, or Science Magazine, or Discover Magazine, or any number of web sites I routinely browse.
But I haven't heard a peep. Why is that? So, my suspicions are raised. I asked a number of questions regarding this paper in my last post, which would help allay those suspicions. It seems like a responsible reaction to such a revolutionary position. And yet you ignored my questions. Why?
As for the ad hominum charge, I imagine you refer to my pointing out (9:03 a.m.) that your post at 8:10 this morning demonstrated that you don't understand the greenhouse effect enough to design a simple experiment regarding it. Well. I'll try to keep your delicate sensibilities in mind in the future.
