If your supervisors are smart, that's all they'll let you do. As you've proved (your post above, 12/30/2007 at 8:03 a.m.), you certainly can't be trusted to design experiments.
As for the paper itself, here are some comments I've found regarding it:
"It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don’t look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don’t solve Maxwell’s equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one."
"The planetary albedo is apparently a mystery to the authors, as is the ratio of Earth’s disc to it’s surface area, and they take exception to energy balance diagrams ‘because they do not fit in the Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory”. This is bunkum of a high order."
But that's not all. Here's a more lengthy and more damning citicism:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
Here's some more discussion by people who, unlike you or me, actually seem to know what they are talking about, and find absurd errors in this paper: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html
You refused to answer the questions I posed earlier which would give us some clue as to the scientific standing of both the paper you linked to and its authors. Your refusal to take this simple and responsible step leaves the paper wide open to criticism. If we are to believe the sources I found, this would explain the fact that the paper is not taken seriously in the scientific community, at least not beyond a few bloggers who, fortunately, have taken time from more productive endevors to point out how silly it is.
So where does all this leave us? At the beginning. You can believe that the global scientific community, including such august instititions as the National Academy of Sciences and NASA are ignorant, or misguided, or just lying to us in order to get funding, or, you can believe that they are giving us their best projections of what's going on with regard to the climate. Which would make you wrong and all those liberal environmental whackos you hate so much, right.
And you can't stand that, can you?
(I'm assuming you're a knee-jerk anti-environmentalist, but I don't know that. I infer it from your behavior--quickly jumping on the bandwagon of this paper while dismissing about a century of settled science on the greenhouse effect. You could invalidate my conclusion by rejecting the paper in question, and acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is not seriously being questioned by serious scientists.)
