User talk:Greg House

Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, I did not delete or change anything in the original article "greenhouse effect". I added the scientific refutation of the concept, which I believe is quite legitimate. This fully meets the proclaimed purpose of the site: "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement." So please, let the readers decide for themselves.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Greg House / talk / contribs


 * Please sign your contribution on all talk pages (including your own user-talk) by repeating this symbol "~" (the "tilde") four times. Like this: ~ Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As to your point: The core of Venus is not in fact hotter thaen that of earth. If it were, there would still be major volcanic activity and/or plate tectonics on Venus. Neither of those have been observed. Trust me, I know a thing or two on that issue. And no, global warming does not violate any physical laws. As a matter of fact, we only exist thanks to the greenhouse-effect. Without an atmosphere, the "climate" (which is a rather nonsensical term in the absence of an atmosphere, but bear with me) would be the same as on the moon. With nightly lows in the triple digits below zero and daily highs in the triple digits above zero Celsius. As a matter of fact all complex gas molecules, including O2, N2, H2O and of course CO 2 have a certain influence on the climate. The effect they have is in fact quite similar to a greenhouse. A greenhouse heats up because its glass walls let light through, but block infra-red-radiation, hence "trapping" said radiation and contributing to a significant heating. Similar things apply (on a larger scale) for all major gases. Hence the common term "greenhouse-effect" has been coined to ease public debate. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated, which physical law is violated by the "greenhouse effect" concept. You can disagree, but it does not justify deleting my contribution. Like I said, I did not remove or change anything from what was in the article, but just added a refutation, so please let's be fair and not delete the opposite point of view.Greg House (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Greg House


 * If your point were true, there would surely be countless articles in major peer-reviewed journals about it. Surely digging up a link to one of those articles would not be too much to ask, would it? You are familiar with the footnote, aren't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is clear and obvious like "2+2=5 is wrong", you will not find a peer-reviewed article on that. Now I suggest you or whoever it is stop deleting my part of the article, do not be such a coward. Greg House (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Greg House


 * There may well be a scientific article that was published in a major journal that makes a reference to two and two not in fact equaling five. But that is of course a convenient red herring thrown by you. Of course you can raise your problem on the appropriate talk page of the corresponding article. But edit warring will get you nowhere. And of course providing some sources for your assertion can't hurt either. But even if you can cite enough Dr.Oil and Koch industries PhD to back up your ridiculous "claim" I wouldn't like my chances if I were you. Anyway, good day sir or madam Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since Avenger can't bother explaining for real
There's no conservation of energy issue there. The amount the surface takes in from the atmosphere accounts for the difference you're noting. In other words, 324 plus 168 is the 492 put back out. Likewise for the atmosphere, 452 plus 67 (in) equals 324 plus 197 (out). The sun and space are the only sources/sinks (respectively) in the illustration. TL;DR: you forgot to add. Better now? 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Typical climate pseudo-science
Your calculation is false. In the picture the only source of energy delivered to the system "surface + atmosphere" is the Sun. It is PHYSICALLY impossible that the surface radiates away more energy than the whole system gets from outside.

It is possible, of course, just to put an arrow and ANY number pointing to the surface in the picture and claim "this is the additional warming!". It is like cooking books and has nothing to do with science, because it violates the physical Law of Conservation of Energy. But people can be fooled by that, this is also clear.

You cowards know that now, that's why you locked the original article. This is so despicable. Greg House (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Greg House


 * Care to join a club with User:-Mona-? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously Avenger, your view of Israel-related issues is a lot further from the reality than Mona's. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And Greg House, where do you get this silly idea that the surface would give off more energy than it gets from the outside? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 42015 AQD (UTC)