HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Every last one of you infuriating goofballs on this thread is assigned the first two chapters of this book. Until you understand them you have NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INFORMATION THEORY.
Re: The Original Post, Dr Gitt is a crazyman who is attempting to disguise a laughable mess of mystical blather, non-sequiters, and general loopy moonman logic as a scientific paper. It is a fairly regular occurence that journals get insane submissions from hairy weirdos attempting to disprove (or prove) things like the second law of thermodynamics; often they keep a few of the craziest around to laugh at. Gitt's "paper" falls in this category.
More specific criticisms of his work can be found in my post here. Let me add one question to that, for anyone still defending this nonsense: what is Dr. Gitt's definition of information?
I'm sorry, but who died and made you king? As to your link, Albert Gore wrote a book. Does that make him believable and a requirement for people to discuss the subject of climate? I've looked at the first few pages of the book you linked to and I have not found a definition of "information" in it so far. But I have found this in the book....
Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff put for the idea that the complexity of a string of data can be defined by the length of the shortest binary computer program for computing the string.
What exactly is data, and a computer program? I suppose the least objectionable statement would have been.:
... idea that a characteristic of a sequence of symbols, a member of a certain set, can be defined by a characteristic of another sequence of symbols, a member of a set(which could possibly be the same set braving the halting problem), having the value of "shortest".
That assumes we agree on what symbols, sets, members, value, and shortest mean.