Reply to thread

So you don't have a clue and are nothing more than a parrott for the side that you agree with?  And I must assume that your agreement is based on politics as you have admitted that you don't have the background in science needed to make an informed decision.

And since you have no scientific background, you have no idea of where the science is today.  You only know what you are told and have no way of knowing whether what you are being told is based on actual science or an agenda aimed at gaining political power.

While I am not a climatologist, I do posess two degrees in hard sciences.  I have gone over that paper and can find no flaw in the man's case and have made a thorough search looking for papers from the field of physics in support of the greenhouse gas theory.  I can find none. 

Why would the NYT have told you about the problem with the greenouse gas theory?  They are admittedly pro anthropogenic global warming theory.  Ditto for science magazine and discover magazine.  And it is clear that the sites you regularly brouse are also pro AGW theory because this is just one of hundreds of pieces of real science that put the lie to AGW theory.

I didn't answer because they are nothing more than a circumstantial ad homenim attack.  Where data comes from is as irrelavent as who presents it or who funded it.  It is either accurate or it is not.  Since you have not pointed out any inaccuracy, you must have dismissed it as an article of faith and I am really not interested in your faith.