There is a statistical interpretation of thermodynamics that reduces the thermodynamic laws into classical statistical mechanics. It does not, however, contradict it, and your poor understanding of how the connection is made doesn’t make you right to interpret things in the way you have.

In other words:

You can choose to look at thermodynamics in terms of pressure, volume, temperature, heat, and such. Under this interpretation, the methods of heat transfer are irrelevant and do not change the results. All you need to know is whether heat transfer occurs at all and by how much. We have already measured the thermodynamic properties of CO2, and we have already made the measurements otherwise. No Greenhouse Effect exists.

Or, you can choose to look at particles and energy and momentum. Under this interpretation, you can think about radiation and such, but you must also consider all other forms of energy transfer. This system inevitably reduces to the previous system of pressure, volume, temperature and heat, without contradiction. If it did contradict it, then the statistical interpretation would be wrong, not the other way around.

You must admit that an energetic particle from one system does not necessarily transfer its kinetic energy or momentum to another system. You must include the probability of whether that particle ends up gaining or losing momentum from a more or less energetic particle in the other system. As such, you must also admit that radiation — the interaction between two particles of two systems — does not contradict this result. If you, instead, think of the radiation as something separate, it still cannot contradict this. If it does, your ideas are wrong, not thermodynamics.

Thinking in terms of the second, statistical mechanical interpretation is very, very difficult. It took a long time before all the details were hammered out and the experimental results that gave us the first interpretation were derived. Notice I say “derived”. The first interpretation is based solely on observation and a little bit of math. The second interpretation is all theory, with a little bit of observation (Brownian Motion and such, for instance.) If the second interpretation does not agree with the first, then the second is wrong, not the other way around.

In neither case can you analyze a thermodynamic system, such as the earth, by exclusively analyzing one method of heat transfer when other methods of heat transfer are known to occur. You have to measure the temperature of the sun, the temperature of the earth, and the heat transfer between the two.

Perhaps I misspoke by saying that a vast majority of the photons from the sun increase the temperature of the earth. More precisely, all photons from the sun (or anywhere else) add energy to the earth, with the net energy gain (or loss) being a function of the energy of the photons received minus the energy of the photons released [simply because photons cannot have negative energy]. I used “vast majority” instead of “all” because there is a (vanishingly) small probability that a set of photons from the sun might interact with the earth such that the energy of ejected photons is greater than the energy of the absorbed photons. My guess is that this probably happens less than once a day over the entire surface of the earth and can thus be ignored.

Since the net gain (or loss) of energy from photon emission and absorption is a function of how many photons of what energy are emitted, it is relevant to compare the relative temperatures of the sun and earth. The sun’s surface is around 5700 kelvin, while the earth’s surface is everywhere below 350 kelvin (the max recorded). The ill effects of climate change, if you believe all of the science behind it, would occur with just less than a 10 kelvin difference. So, if we’re trying to figure out, as a society, how to deal with a potential movement from 300 kelvin to 310 kelvin, we don’t have to discuss the case of what happens when the earth’s surface reaches 5700 kelvin.

2. George W. Bush was a terrible president. He did not respect the constitution, he did not set our fiscal house in order. RE the Patriot Act, some things are good and some things are bad. Most people don’t even know what it is so I refuse to give a blanket statement unless you’re willing to talk specifics.

3. The state has an interest in seeing every child with a loving mother and father.

There are states talking about issuing their own currency. Just because congress is permitted to issue currency doesn’t mean no one else can.

You have two questions: (1) Why should there be rich people when there are poor people? (2) How would you feel if you were poor?

Your comments on religion are ignorant, so I will ignore them.

(1) Why should there be rich when there are poor people?

You are assuming that there is some sort of evil by having one person have something another doesn’t. Or perhaps it’s the magnitude. It’s okay if I have $10 and you only have $1, but not if I have $10,000,000 and you only have $10. But let me state that this is the very nature of reality. It is very, very rare that we have two things that are completely equal. The nature of things is that things are almost always unequal.

Let’s move away from money and talk about family. Is it fair that I have six brothers and a sister, and you only have what you have? Should I be forced to give up some of my brothers so that you can have more? That’s absurd.

So it is with money. It’s not unfair that one person has more. What’s unfair is when we treat people with a different set of rules.

(2) The truth is, we are all poor. We all lack something or other we desperately need. To the villages in Africa, that would be a stable, nutritious food supply, clean water, and vaccines. To me, it’s a new computer capable of supporting my job, a comfortable chair that doesn’t hurt my back, and a home close to work so that I don’t have to commute 3 hours each day. You might weigh one person’s needs against another. Yes, food and water and vaccines are more important than comfortable chairs. But what you’re not seeing is how do we get these Africans food and water and vaccines?

The bottom line is we can’t just give it to them. That may work for a time, but in the long run, all that does is create slaves. We must, instead, have them produce their own food, water, and vaccines, or something valuable they can use to trade for it. This is the recipe for freedom.

How do we do that? That’s the study of economics. It’s the study of morality and ethics. (Clubbing the neighboring village and taken their food is bad, for instance.) It’s the study of government. It’s basically the same problem I have trying to find a good chair to sit in.

Ultimately, what will save the Africans from starvation, drought and disease is not people giving away free stuff or forcing others to give away free stuff or forcing others to give themselves free stuff so they can give it to the people they want to help. What will save the Africans is changing their culture and behavior so that capitalism can take hold. When Africans look at their own situation, say “What do I have? What can I do to improve my situation by helping others?” and then evaluate all the options and choose the best possible one, they will quickly turn into a 1st world country.

So you have two statements you agree with: (a) “When the earth is cold and the sun is hot, the vast majority of photons increase the temperature of the earth” (b) “If the earth were to reach the same temperature as the sun, then the energy flowing from the sun would neither heat nor cool the earth.”

And one you don’t agree with: (c) “As the earth warms, more and more photons are actually cooling the earth”.

I don’t see how you can have (a) and (b) be true without (c) being true also. Note carefully, I am not saying “all” photons cool the earth. I am only saying that some photons heat and some photons cool, and that the proportion changes as the relative temperatures change. We both agree on two extremes (a) and (b), but you disagree that (c) lies between the two.

I don’t know what relevance your bringing up the fact that if the earth were the temperature of the sun, it would be very, very hot. Red herring.

Bottom line: I don’t think like the strawman you’ve proposed. And only my message can give hope to people who are trapped by their own shameful behavior, no matter what it is. Nothing else will work, long term, to alleviate the pain of guilt and shame. I’d be happy to argue why, but it seems like you’re only interested at tilting at windmills fabricated in your mind.