agger at c.dk
Fri Dec 4 08:19:12 UTC 2009
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:51 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> The link I posted (http://www.abv.org.uk/node/47) contains references
> about the NASA fakery. I gave up in frustration to find any debunking
> attempt based on anything more than fuzzy feeling, and the debunking
> of the leaks is just was weak. Maybe you have some good debunking of
> the NASA fakery that will convince a skeptic?
The reference in your link is to this posting:
I believe there's a good round-up of this sort of criticism here,
although it doesn't address that specific article:
Seriously, the notion that NASA would be faking its temperature data to
achieve (what?) political ends requires a conspiracy of the magnitude of
(The physical laws which would dictate that a substantial increase of
greenhouse gases like CO2 leads to higher temperatures are really very
simple: The Planck radiation law, the Stefan Boltzmann equation and the
notion of emissivity as influenced by the presence of greenhouse gases.
Global warming basically follows from the discoveries of John Tyndall
(1820-1893) and Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), but I suppose they were in
on the conspiracy too?).
More information about the Discussion