On the other aspect “the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist” I cant see how this is not a physical effect, it is of course a natural phenomena but one which we have particularly added too within the last few generations. Im not sure i agree on the solar forcing issue, seems to have been debunked on the New Scientist article, but without being a lot less ignorant than I am, I have no idea on its accuracy.

Claim and counter claim is the work of science, and without this we would never progress. Galilieo was imprisoned for his counter claims but in the end he was proved right, on climate change we shall see……. but thanks again for your input – Help fight ignorance!

Two German physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, co-author of a July 7, 2007 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”.
“The main results of our paper are:
- the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
- computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify conjectures, according to the usual definition of science.”

“Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community. However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, I.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.”

“We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are very sorry that we cannot reply to all statements published in Internet blogs since our “times on-line” are rather limited. Especially, we do not reply to semi-anonymous virtual climate pets like Eli Rabett and other Internet geniusses such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and others at “Real Climate” or “Atmoz Blog” anti-scientific smear sites. Most of them do know so little about physics such that they quote the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly in order to falsify our work. Even the difference between energy, work and heat seems to be unknown to these experts. This cannot be the basis of a scientific discussion.”

“To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it “real climate” research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory.”
Climate Alarmism