I don’t know.

Problems are many.

“Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets.”

Doesn’t mean anything.

“There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the atmosphere of a given planet.”

Is wrong. gravitational potential energy and the specific heat capacity define the lapse rate.

And the equation with pressure/temperature is

PV=nRT.

Note that pressure AND volume are there. Where do you talk about volume? Nowhere.

“â?¢ Heat rises, cool sinks.”

Wrong. Total potential energy is required to be higher to allow rising. Otherwise you would not be able to get inversions. Go read a book on weather.

How to tell somebody you donâ??t believe in AGW.

Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
are able to base their argument upon. Science canâ??t be politicised, truth of fact canâ??t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.

The Science says:

Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
atmosphere of a given planet.

Why Now? Itâ??s the science;

â?¢ The climate of Earthsâ?? atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.

â?¢ The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
planets could not exist.

â?¢ Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
mass.

â?¢ Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.

Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.

The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.

Where NASA got the science wrong:

Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
in a stupid greenhouse.

Dopey Hansen in the early 80â??s flipped out about Arrheniousâ?? mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
principle. They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum.

When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.

Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
this fatal mistake.

The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.

So, when somebody asks why you donâ??t believe in AGW you can say;

â??Itâ??s the science, stupid.â?

“Is climate change a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

or

“Climate change is a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

but

“IS climate change IS a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

Just sounds really … wrong.

But again, maybe I’m just crazy. If I am just crazy, I apologize.

I guess that explains conservative evangelical Christian scientist Katharine Hayhoe believing in Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating. She also wrote a chapter for one of Newt Gingrich’es books discussing climate change – that was later taken out and had her harrassed see here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHYhovvLQyc&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Destroy the USA specifically? Funny how climate change is harmless to the rest of planet and no other nation recognises the scientific reality or taking steps (like, say, the Ausie carbon tax & ETS introduced by our PM Julia Gillard this year) to reduce the speed of the Global Overheating or anything right? Oh wait ..