More on Global Warming. I got this from the blog "Moonbattery;"

Here's the abstract to an interesting report entitled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics" (PDF), which came out of the Institut für Mathematische Physik at Germany's Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina last summer:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Someone get this to Al Gore quickly, before he makes a fool of himself. Whoops, too late.

I have been reading the report. It's 113 pages long and has a lot of equations. I'm trying to figure out how, as some say, that if Hansen, et al are correct about the greenhouse gas effect hypothesis, then it would be possible to construct a perpetual motion machine of the second class. That would then violate the second law of thermodynamics, therefore the greenhouse gas hypothesis would be invalid. So far I haven't figured that out.