This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
In asking a few harmless questions about an aspect of climate science I have met with a rather tetchy and impolite response from this blog's author.
I only made a scant reference to the T&N paper and this was a reference in it to the findings of an Edwardian British experimenter.
The whole subject of climate science is fraught with controversy and compexity, I know. Just a look at Antony Watt's website, illustrates that every proffered opinion invokes a deluge of counter arguments and theories. For instance yesterdays guest posting 'Explaining Misconceptions on the "Greenhouse Effect" by Ben Herman & Roger A Pielke Sr prompted 290 reply comments!
I think my anti AWG stance is better enunciated than I could manage, from one of the responses, he first quotes the authors,
Alexander Feht says:
July 23, 2010 at 8:28 am
“The rest of the processes, including convection, conduction, feedbacks, etc. are too complicated to discuss here and are not completely understood anyway.”
But that’s the crux of the matter. For starters, there cannot be a proper greenhouse effect in the presence of constant convection. And the biosphere is a temperature regulating mechanism that constantly changes the chemical composition of atmosphere, therefore defining, where the equilibrium will be.
Therefore, all this talk about “greenhouse effect being real” is nonsense. No, it’s not “real,” it exists only within the simplistic framework of intentional misunderstanding.
To conclude, I would say that we are all on this (my favourite website) trying to puzzle out what might be the truth and to scratch intellectual itches, so there'e no need to go off in a huff about it.
I am surprised, indeed shocked, that you interpret my remarks as an attack on you. If I have inadvertently left myself open to that allegation then I can only apologise. The target was the gentleman in Australia who berated those warmists who not only criticized the paper in question, but also used the opportunity it unfortunately gave them to muddy the waters with further discussions of irrelevancies.