Comments on: Former NASA scientist debunks CO2 greenhouse theory

By: Zoltan Egeresi

Zoltan Egeresi — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:53:20 +0000

Right on Dr Miskolcy, this whole thing was a scam from A-Z to set up a global taxation system based on energy use and the lawyers would be rich and happy ever after. The CO2 content of the air is a fraction of a % today as it was thousands of years ago before Al Gore or Obama climbed off the tree. More CO2 more plant grow, less CO2 less vegetation grow. Any excess of CO2 is absorbed by the trees, vegetation, sea grass and so on. High school biology.

By: Franko

Franko — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:53:39 +0000

The theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolcziis a simplified, minimalistic attempt to summarize the bulk effects of a very complicated interaction.

(1) Kirchoff is enclosed radiation — (by mean free path)
(2) Virial — molecule can emit up or down — take infinite sums

Experiment and computer simulation to verify general principles;
(1) Spin a disk of gases and measure. (map gravityr*ω^2)
(2) Do a computer simulation of imaginary molecules.

By: cloud10

cloud10 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:25:53 +0000

Response to critics of the paper

http://miskolczi.webs.com/Answers_to_some_criticism.htm

This gives response to some criticism he was aware of.

By: Allan Kiik

Allan Kiik — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:42:09 +0000

http://landshape.org/enm/the-value-of-tau/
There is an attempt to debunk some parts of it, but this is clearly not enough to debunk whole thing.

By: Dave N

Dave N — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:26:59 +0000

I’ve since been looking for any sites claiming to be debunking Miskolczi. I found this at RC:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

but it seems rather vague. Anyone find any more? Just curious as to whether his theories hold water.

By: Igor

Igor — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:50:33 +0000

Dave, the latter did, a little bit: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf followed by http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf I don't think either of the two are published

By: Dave N

Dave N — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:37:41 +0000

I’m curious as to why his paper was written over 3 years ago, but doesn’t seem to have received much attention. Similarly a paper written two years ago by Gerlich and Tscheuschner seems to have had very little attention:

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html

By: JOHN

JOHN — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:14:46 +0000

I’m taking bets Dick Morris will either:

a) kill himself

or,

b) continue his lunacy