The definitive AGW denial treatise

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by icarus, Apr 15, 2010.

  1. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    976
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I have come across what can only be described as the definitive proof positive that AGW is false! I have changed my long held beliefs by reading and finally understanding this. I challenge everyone else to do the same.

    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/parity.pdf

    I expect you AGW believers to explain,, in detail where they think the study is flawed!


    Icarus

    PS. This link is even clearer:

    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
     
  2. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,256
    1,580
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I like the conclusion. After all that excessively complicated technical verbage, (aka 'big words') they say: 'somebody should check.' :)
     
  3. LRKingII

    LRKingII New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    679
    132
    0
    Location:
    Idaho
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Actually it says "look"
     
  4. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    976
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    And to think I have spent all this time trying to get rectabular conditions to transmogrify. I should have understood that cobaqular thyristors would not register properly,,,

    Silly me!
     
  5. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,256
    1,580
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Well of course. I mean, if you'd only read the thing, you'd know that "biological homochirality was universally biased by residual chiral vacuum background" means 'you only see what you're looking for' :D

    And yes, it says 'look', not 'check'. Oops.