Which just shows how litle you understand, PR.
I have already pointed out onthat site why B_Happy is making incorrect assumptions and unaware of facts I have explained in the paper, such as the fact that the Planck curve for a cooler body is always underneath and fully contained within the Planck curve for a warmer body.
Carbon dioxide is like an army of toddlers (various heights, yes) facing an army of adults on the surface – various heights, yes, but all taller than the tallest toddler by far and not slowed by much by the lot of them.
You still have no understanding of what’s in my paper.
You also incorrectly draw parallels with a few authors of a book calling themselves Slayers, and a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand) which is making a stand against pseudo -physics contained in typical IPCC hoax propaganda.
I quote from PSI website …
Core Values & Mission Statement
PSI CORE VALUES
Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.
PSI has identified that there are currently two opposing methodologies at conflict:
Traditional scientific method: borne of the Age of Enlightenment and which gave rise to the technological advances of the industrial revolution.
Post-normalism:* pre-deterministic approach where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it. The most culpable purveyors of this modern malaise are national governments, NGO’s and big corporations.
PSI ASSOCIATES are steadfast in their support of the traditional scientific method as encapsulated most eloquently in the ideas of Karl Popper. As such PSI opposes post-normalism and endeavors to provide society with an antidote (from the Greek αντιδιδοναι antididonai, “given against”) to the seemingly gargantuan and pervasive rise of post-normal science by way of our publishing, educational and media-focused materials and presentations. For, as Karl Popper advocated, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
.