Page 4 of 4

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 5th, 2020, 4:31 pm
by Kelly Mc
Kelly Mc wrote:
June 5th, 2020, 9:09 am
I couldnt even make it to the end, of the above shrill, amateurish skit.

One of the poorest "Yeah? Well Youre A DumB Head and a Poopy" that Ernie has ever come up with.

And to think Jimi came to your defense when a mugshot of you in jail scrubs was posted, and others were so embarrassed for you being outed for animal cruelty charges that they pretended to believe your story, and tried even to compare some of their past slights with law enforcement.

However, a foible of a 22 year old (all the examples were in early 20s as I remember) isnt the same as a felony charge at 55 years old.

You didn't post for a while after that. But eventually came back, as graceless as ever.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 5th, 2020, 4:32 pm
by Kelly Mc

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 5th, 2020, 4:52 pm
by Richard F. Hoyer
A number of climate scientists have found that their opinions and research results are incompatible with the conclusions of the IPCC. Wikipedia use to have such a list but since removed that list. So I found the list below from a different source. I looked up the author of his link and have reservations about the gentleman, But the list likely has reasonable merit because i am aware of the positions of a number of listed individuals.

A search can be made on each individuals as a check to the veracity of their being included. At the same time, their credentials and areas of expertise can be viewed. I did so for a number of individuals one of which was Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov. I suggest reviewing the following link.below. I also urge reading the “Speaking Out” section at the end of these lists.

U.S. gov't scientist says he was banned from climate research ...

Richard F. Hoyer

For those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.

There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic.

Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]
Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]

Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]

— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]
Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]
Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]

A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.

Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.

Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.

Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Lennart Bengtsson

Any person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day

If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus)

Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had

Michael Crichton

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 6th, 2020, 9:16 am
by Kelly Mc
Its the same wholesale regurgitation over and over with no discussion of other points made. The gestalt of most recent posts mass expulsion of contrarians is probably from "Ryan From Utah" incognito, if the links work. I sure havent checked.

This second climate change thread has its genesis as product of personal resentment and a demented obsession with the scientific community, using FHF as a platform, and the climate change topic, to express it. Because this message board has Scientists in its membership.

Its a smear campaign to insult the most leal and dedicated amongst us. Who share their works and views with others in rare format.

Thank you to all Scientists who come by here. Knowing you do made this place my favorite destination online.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 6th, 2020, 1:03 pm

What do surveys, petitions, consensus, really count for?.............In today's politicized and sensationalized world. Words like consensus make for great headlines. But in the world of real science they count for absolutely nothing. Every legitimate scientist understands this.

A good scientist knows that science is not a popularity contest. What we are seeing is one side being called alarmist and the other side deniers or contrarians. Being a contrarian is at the core of what makes a scientist. Every honest scientist understands this. A bad scientist is one who submits to group think. Consensus.

In the world of climate change. The contrarians are calling for more open debate. Aim for more objective scientific discussions and conduct. They want more science. The alarmists are calling for more control.

Prof. William Happer, Dean of the Faculty Princeton University

Unfortunately for some. Prof. William Harper can explain it to you, but he can't understand it for you.

Ernie Eison

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 6th, 2020, 2:19 pm
by Jimi
What a would-be demagogue you are, Ernie.

Here's what AAAS & Science magazine offer about Happer:
Source: ... ing-carbon

Physicist leading Trump’s ‘adversarial’ climate review also led group touting carbon emissions
By Scott Waldman, E&E NewsFeb. 28, 2019 , 10:55 AM

Originally published by E&E News

Fill up that gas-guzzling truck—because global bursts of carbon dioxide will benefit society, feed the poor and help future generations thrive.

Those photos of bleached coral, the disappearing island nations and images of glaciers tumbling into the ocean are "mostly myths designed to terrify people into accepting harmful policies that allegedly 'save the planet.'"

Those are some of the claims promoted by the CO2 Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based nonprofit founded in 2015 by the White House official who's overseeing the administration's "adversarial" review of climate science. The group's assertions are disputed by a vast majority of climate researchers. But in the eyes of CO2 Coalition members, it's the world's leading scientists who are wrong.

The CO2 Coalition, established by William Happer, a senior director with the White House National Security Council, has received more than $1 million from energy executives and conservative foundations that fight regulations since it was founded four years ago. The group is stacked with researchers who cast doubt on climate science. Other members have spent years fighting regulations that would reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Happer is forming an ad hoc committee at the White House to highlight uncertainties and areas of low confidence in national science reports on climate change. The panel, called the Presidential Committee on Climate Security in an internal memo, is supposed to question assertions by the U.S. intelligence community that climate change is a risk to national security. Now, rather than issuing public reports, there are signals that the panel might operate behind closed doors. In preliminary talks, Happer pushed for researchers associated with the CO2 Coalition to take a lead role in the effort, according to a source with knowledge of Happer's activities.

The working group at the White House is the culmination of Happer's efforts to sow uncertainty into climate science, which he has called a "cult." The emeritus physics professor with Princeton University is not a trained climate scientist.

In addition to its claims about the benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels, which are at their highest level in the last 400,000 years, the CO2 Coalition highlights snippets of science to promote the notion that the world needs more carbon dioxide. It has created a Facebook ad campaign with cartoons designed for children.

In a series of 30-second illustrated ads, the coalition describes a world in which more carbon dioxide will make for healthier plants and happier bees, bears, and otters. In one, a smiling sunflower takes a selfie and writes, "#TallestYearEver!" In another, a sea otter posing with sea urchins writes, "Urchin Abundance! #gettingMyURCHon!"

In yet another, two children lie in a field gazing at clouds.

"What if there was something that could make plants grow bigger?" a girl asks.

"And something that could make the whole world greener?" a boy responds.

"All those plants could feed the world," the girl says.

Critics push back
Scientists say it's unequivocal that human activities involving fossil fuels are warming the planet with unprecedented speed. While some short-term outcomes stand to benefit crop yields, the buildup of greenhouse gases exposes nations around the world to financial and physical threats, scientists say. Here's one example: Although sea urchins are thriving as a result of climate change, they are destroying the kelp forests that provide habitat for sea otters.

The benefits that rising levels of carbon dioxide provide to some plants are outweighed by the overall effects of climate change, said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Those include warmer and more acidic oceans, which can devastate some marine animals. Warming can also reduce crop yields for wheat, rice, and corn, he said. It's also not true that there's a carbon "drought," as Happer suggests, because global carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 410 ppm today, Trenberth said.

"It's far from clear there is a notable improvement in the types of crops that are desirable for human existence. The quality of grains tends to go down, although you may get a longer growing season out of it," he said. "Putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't help because those benefits are overwhelmed by the increase in droughts and wildfire and air quality issues. The evidence from scientists around the world is widespread in saying that we have a problem."

In the face of mounting research, climate skeptics have pushed for a debate on the science.

In particular, the emerging White House effort led by Happer is one of their most significant achievements in a "long campaign of denial," said Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center, an advocacy group based in Alexandria, Virginia.

"The deniers have been pushing uncertainty and fighting the scientific consensus for 20 or 30 years," he said. "And this is exactly what they want. They want a debate on the science, and there is no debate."

In Washington, D.C., Democrats seized on the White House effort as the antithesis of scientific integrity. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–NY) threatened this past Tuesday to introduce legislation that would defund the administration's "fake climate" exercise.

"This is beyond willful ignorance," Schumer said. "This is intentional, deliberate sowing of disinformation about climate science by our own government."

Since the early days of the Trump administration, officials with the CO2 Coalition have been pushing for a climate debate. They were sometimes recruited by top staffers to former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. Mark Carr, a consultant who worked with the CO2 Coalition, wrote an email thanking Pruitt and his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, for requesting a briefing about the role of greenhouse gases.

"Many of the initiatives on which you are working now will be easier to manage and communications thereon targets of less viable criticism if senior political and policy leaders at your Agency and across the Executive had a more robust understanding of the true role (or lack of one) CO2 plays in the physical world," Carr wrote in an email obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, based in New York City, through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Now the group hopes its founder, Happer, will lead a "re-evaluation" of climate science from inside the White House, said Caleb Rossiter, executive director of the CO2 Coalition.

"As much as I think Dr. Happer feels this debate is important because the science has been under assault by people claiming climate catastrophe—refusing to speak to those of us who have questions about climate catastrophe—I feel that economic development in the Third World and U.S. policy of blocking development in the Third World because of our fears of carbon dioxide, this is an important moment," Rossiter said in an interview. "It may assist."

Happer co-founded the CO2 Coalition in 2015 after spinning it off from the now-defunct George C. Marshall Institute, which raised doubts about climate science and received almost $1 million in grants from Exxon Mobil Corp. The Marshall Institute also focused on defense issues, but Happer told E&E News at the time that the climate work had to be spun off because its contrarian views on warming were driving away donors.

"Many foundations that would normally have supported defense would not do it because of the Marshall name being associated with climate," he said at the time.

The CO2 Coalition has received more than $1 million from foundations that support conservative causes and from officials in the energy industry, according to tax records obtained by the Climate Investigations Center.

The largest donation — $170,000 — came from the Mercer Family Foundation, a top donor to President Trump. The Mercers have also contributed more than $7 million to the Heartland Institute, which attacks climate science.

The Charles Koch Institute provided $33,283 to the CO2 Coalition, while the Wisconsin-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation donated $50,000. The Sarah Scaife Foundation contributed $135,000, and the Florida-based Thomas W. Smith Foundation gave $75,000. EOG Resources Inc., an oil and gas company spun off from Enron Corp., gave $5,000. The Randolph Foundation in New York provided $40,000.

None of those foundations responded to requests for comment.

The Searle Freedom Trust, which has supported the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, gave $75,000 to the CO2 Coalition.

"We support various organizations, so what's in our 990s [tax form] is what you get; thanks anyway, though," said Searle President Kimberly Dennis.

The CO2 Coalition also received small donations from energy executives and others, some of whom have questioned climate change. They include: Stewart Leighton, a former energy executive who has served as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute ($5,000); Norman Rogers, a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute who attacks climate models ($15,000); and Bruce Everett, a former Exxon executive ($5,000). All of them have served on the group's board of directors.

Pointing out the funding sources of the CO2 Coalition is an "ad hominem attack," said Rossiter, the group's executive director.

"Asking about people's funding is an ad hominem attack when you can't take on what they're saying," he said. "You take your money where you can get it, typically, in my experience, and people in Washington have strong feelings about what they think is right, and if they're expressing them and they are a member of Congress or a foundation like ours, money is going to chase the beliefs that you are already expressing."

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 7th, 2020, 6:37 am
by BillMcGighan
Richard, know that I have utmost respect for your work on herpetology, but that doesn’t just transfer automatically to other subjects.

Now I can foresee individuals using the same tiresome ploy of indicating that CFACT is funded by conservatives, the fossil fuel industry, etc. thereby dismissing any point of view that do not support their position. I suggest instead, it would be more construictive to focus on substance.
Now Richard, you're right on substance, but you and I are old enough to know better than to discount who pays for the opinion and hype when the data is "interpreted".

Personal anecdote:
In the early ‘70s I personally knew some of the University of Florida team that was tasked to do the biology side of an impact study on the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. These folks collected data in a conscientious and thorough, unbiased, scientific method.

All their raw data was presented to attorneys of both sides, pro-canal and anti-canal.
Both sides presented written arguments that were amazingly convincing, even to skeptics from the other side. That was their job.

Point being is that both were using the very same raw data collected by scientists, so how could there be such seemingly credible arguments using the same data? Answer: who was paying for the result.

( Of course, the rest of this story was solved by Richard Nixon of all people, when he was convinced that the canal would destroy the central Florida aquifer thus denying flow to thousands of fresh water wells, and the project was abandoned.)

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 7th, 2020, 6:41 am
by BillMcGighan
On Harper August 2015

Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money being paid to a climate-sceptic think tank.

An undercover sting by Greenpeace has revealed that two prominent climate sceptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubt on the dangers posed by global warming.
They come as government ministers meet in Paris this week to try to reach an agreement to fight climate change, and one month after it emerged that ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy were under investigation in the state of New York over claims of misleading the public and investors about climate change.

Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

emails: ... p5/a265569

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 8th, 2020, 8:55 am
by Kelly Mc
Oh Gosh, thank you Bill for coming over here and well, Showing Up as they say. I have felt compelled to stand here beside Jimi, alone, with my little ad hoc sword of love for this planet, with all my political science deficits, but knowing whats good. So thank you and forgive my guff, please.

This topic goes beyond my pet interest in message board anthropology. We probably know that no one rabidly Bit On a situation thats been sunk into the bones of politics will ever probably change their mind.

I wish people would see how far, far away from politics this topic is.

And Ernie, oh Ernie. How similar our trajectories have been. Im certain I met you once. You were full of interest and warmth about showing a borrowing python. I was kinda cute then, but I dont think that was it. It was the snake.

I never came to see snakes as a way to make money. But I realize that in my small path they allowed me a vocation.

Things change, humans really cannot be trusted.

But this planet, oh my it is so wonderful. Its above our differences.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 9th, 2020, 12:32 pm
Climate change alarmist increasingly extreme statements undermine actual scientific progress.

Climate alarmists display dismissive contempt for those who question the cogency of their evidence. Using sly gamesmanship influencing that there is irrefutable proof. Condescendingly they call other scientist and citizens deniers or skeptics. They assert that all other evidence and views should be ignored. Forcibly they want to convince people that there is only one side to the argument. That is not science, it's politicized corruption.

Greenpeace was cited in this thread as an info source.
Ph.D., Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has been a leader in the international environmental movement for over forty years.

A succinct talk given as part of a round - table Climate Debate held June 2018.


The posted outtakes defaming Prof. William Hopper.. Lifted from unreliable sources, have all been debunked. I won't bother to factually shred them point by point. Suffice to say if Prof. Harper had been guilty of any wrong doing. Princeton U. would have never risked the university's legendary reputation by allowing Prof. William Harper to return and maintain his prestigious title as Dean of Faculty.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 9th, 2020, 1:15 pm
by Richard F. Hoyer
Your point is well taken and understood. I too can cite a personal example of individuals looking at the same information and arriving at different interpretations. I am pretty sure that some time ago, I entered a post dealing with the issue snake road kill that is such an example.

At the time the issue surfaced on the PARC national web site, all comments were one sided with the consensus that road mortality of snakes produced lasting, negative impact to snake populations. With my background in wildlife science, I was highly skeptical as it did not fit with my understanding of what makes populations tick. So I chimed in with my rational and I believe just like here on the forum, there was silence thereafter.

So the series of email messages you posted is yet another example where different individuals can arrive at a number of different interpretations.

So some questions come to mind. What constitutes the real ‘substance’ in this Happer caper? Was the contractual agreement one in which William Happer would reap personal financial benefits? Was Dr. Happer going to change his position on CO-2 to conform to a position desired by the 'client'? Or did his position on CO-2 remain consistent with what his published position had been all along about CO-2 being beneficial and not a pollutant?

Did he hide the negative aspects of fossil fuels? Or was he up front with the ‘client’s representative’ specifying a number of contaminates that occur during the use of fossil fuels? Did he advocate any type of illegal arrangement? Or did he emphasize that any transaction needed to conform to all federal laws?

For me, the ‘substance’ that was involved was Dr. Happe's positionr on the role of CO-2 in the climate debate. And from those series of message you copied, his position on CO-2 remained unchanged irrespective of the fee arrangement to be donated to a non-profit he supports.

On the other hand, others consider the ‘substance’ to be Happer is being’ bought’ by the fossil fuel industry. Or others may believe the main ‘substance’ is Happer not wishing to be viewed as being ‘in bed’ with the fossil fuel industry.

It is understandable why he wished that the origin of the donation to the non-profit not be known as he clearly understood that individuals, such as those on this forum, would make a big deal out of it. It seems not to dawn on others that Happer’s position on the role of CO-2 and global warming was establish long ago and to my knowledge, has remained consistent and unchanged.

And I agree with Happer that CO-2 is not a pollutant. CO-2 is an essential compound for all life to be sustained on earth. To believe otherwise would indicate we are all sinning polluters by exhaling CO-2 with every breath we take. But I can agree that how much CO-2 is a good thing can be the subject of debate.

With this climate issue, one group indicates there should be an open debate and an examination of ALLa scientific evidence. Then the other side indicates there is no need for any debate. They indicate the issue has long been settled and actively attempt to silence anyone that has the opposite point of view. So I have to ask, tell me which side do you support? From alal of my posts, it is clear that I favor having the scientists debate the issue and tha all relavant scientific research should be considered. I am have the position that future research may add to our understanding.

Two last points. It has become exceedingly clear that many individuals, particularly in the social media, do not understand that one of major pillars of science is that of ‘skepticism’. Otherwise they would not cast the word ‘skeptic’ as if such had a negative context. Secondly, anyone that holds the position that the science is settled also does not understand the nature of the scientific enterprise as science is rarely settled.

Richard F. Hoyer

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 10th, 2020, 10:31 am
by Kelly Mc
It cant really do any harm to let it be at this point.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 10th, 2020, 11:17 am
by craigb
Didn't the Beatles say that "Speaking words of wisdom, let it be"

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 10th, 2020, 1:36 pm
by Kelly Mc
Uhh sure Craig. Sure.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 15th, 2020, 10:50 am
by Jimi
While the horseshit cart went rolling on, spilling its little road apples all over the place, out in the real world this happened:


Note, this is NOT the same thing I posted back on 5/29 - that was for April 2020. This new dataset is for May 2020.

Oh, look. From the same source, more factoids free of denier horseshit:
The May 2020 global surface temperature was 1.71°F (0.95°C) above the 20th-century average of 58.6°F (14.8°C), tying with 2016 as the highest for May in the 141-year record.

May 2020 marked the 44th consecutive May and the 425th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

The 10 warmest Mays have all occurred since 1998. However, the 2014-2020 Mays are the seven warmest in the 141-year record.

The Northern Hemisphere also had its warmest May on record, with a departure from average of +2.14°F (+1.19°C), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 and matched in 2016 by 0.18°F (0.10°C). The Southern Hemisphere’s departure from average was 1.30°F (0.72°C) above average and tied with 1998 as the fifth-highest May temperature on record.

May 2020 was characterized by warmer-than-average temperatures across much of the globe. Much of northern and southeastern Asia, northern Africa, Alaska, the southwest contiguous United States and the northern Pacific Ocean were 2.7°F (1.5°C) above average or higher. The most notable cool temperature departures from average during May were observed across much of Canada, the eastern contiguous United States, eastern Europe and Australia, with temperatures at least 1.8°F (1.0°C) below average.

Asia had its warmest May on record at 3.76°F (2.09°C) above average, surpassing the now second-warmest May set in 2012 by 0.45°F (0.25°C). May 2020 also marked the first time Asia’s May temperature departure from average surpassed 3.6°F (2.0°C). Africa, South America, and the Caribbean region had a May temperature that ranked among the six warmest Mays on record.

The global land-only surface temperature for May 2020 was also the highest on record at 2.50°F (1.39°C) above the 20th century average of 52.0°F (11.1°C). This was 0.07°F (0.04°C) above the previous record set in 2012. The 10 highest global land-only surface temperature departures have occurred since 2010.

Enough with the sophistry, guys. Enough with the horseshit.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 17th, 2020, 8:46 am
by Richard F. Hoyer
I owe Scott Waters a big THANK YOU! Everyone might review Scott’s post of March 29, 2019. Despite some individuals posting personal attacks and less than desirable language, Scott has allowed this thread to continue for more than a year’s duration. Thanks again Scott!

By now, all viewers of this thread can note there are highly regarded professionals in climate science and related fields that differ in their views. That should be ample evidence there are two sides to the issue of climate change. It remains to be seen when the issue eventually will be resolved, one way or the other.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 17th, 2020, 3:29 pm
by Jimi

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 17th, 2020, 3:33 pm
by Jimi
Source for the following (where you can also click links to get to the scientific papers by Oreskes, Doran, et al.): ... vanced.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Note the second key conclusion - the more you know, the more you know. News f*cking flash, right?

Question - what's the situation here? A case of abstruse, or a case of obtuse?

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 17th, 2020, 3:45 pm
by Jimi
And 'cause I feel like hitting this one more time - horseshit don't float. It just kind of waterlogs, then it crumbles and sinks, and leaves you with nothing but dirty water.

You can try to set it down carefully, you can blow on it to try and keep it dry, why hell - you can even paint it with Shinola if you've got any of that still laying around in a sock drawer, but in the end,

Horseshit don't float.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 19th, 2020, 7:22 am
by Jimi
And now for our morally superior, foundational-values endowed brethren, more current news from the climate front:

source: ... erm=061820

Original Investigation
Environmental Health
June 18, 2020
Association of Air Pollution and Heat Exposure With Preterm Birth, Low Birth Weight, and Stillbirth in the USA Systematic Review
Bruce Bekkar, MD1; Susan Pacheco, MD2; Rupa Basu, PhD3,4; et al Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, MSHP5
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208243. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8243

so what?
Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

Question - Are increases in air pollutant or heat exposure related to climate change associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth, in the US?

Findings - In this systematic review of 57 of 68 studies including a total of 32 798 152 births, there was a statistically significant association between heat, ozone, or fine particulate matter and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Heterogeneous studies from across the US revealed positive findings in each analysis of exposure and outcome.

Meaning - The findings suggest that exacerbation of air pollution and heat exposure related to climate change may be significantly associated with risk to pregnancy outcomes in the US.

Drilling down a little:
Findings Of the 1851 articles identified, 68 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 32 798 152 births were analyzed, with a mean (SD) of 565 485 (783 278) births per study. A total of 57 studies (48 of 58 [84%] on air pollutants; 9 of 10 [90%] on heat) showed a significant association of air pollutant and heat exposure with birth outcomes. Positive associations were found across all US geographic regions. Exposure to PM2.5 or ozone was associated with increased risk of preterm birth in 19 of 24 studies (79%) and low birth weight in 25 of 29 studies (86%). The subpopulations at highest risk were persons with asthma and minority groups, especially black mothers. Accurate comparisons of risk were limited by differences in study design, exposure measurement, population demographics, and seasonality.

Studies across diverse US populations were identified that reported an association of PM2.5, ozone, and heat exposure with the adverse obstetrical outcomes of preterm birth, low birth weight at term, and stillbirth. More than 32 million births were analyzed, with a mean (SD) of 565 485 (783 278) births per study. In each analysis of climate change–related exposure and adverse obstetrical outcome, most of the studies found a statistically significant increased risk (Table). The highest number of studies (eTables 2-7 in the Supplement) were found for risk of preterm birth (29 studies) and low birth weight (32 studies), whereas limited studies were identified for stillbirth (7 studies) because of the lack of available data for health studies.

Heat exposure may contribute to prematurity through labor instigation from dehydration (via prostaglandin or oxytocin release), from altered blood viscosity, and/or by leading to inefficient thermoregulation60,73,74; it may also trigger preterm premature rupture of membranes and thus preterm birth during the warm season.75 Likewise, heat exposure may impair fetal growth by reducing uterine blood flow and altering placental-fetal exchange.74,76,77 Mechanisms associated with elevated temperatures and stillbirth include the initiation of premature labor (as noted above), lowering amniotic fluid volume, damaging the placenta,78 or causing abruption.79

Horseshit Is Literally - LITERALLY - Injuring And Killing Babies. American Babies.

You don't have to change your mind. Would you please just stop spreading their horseshit?

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 23rd, 2020, 1:44 pm
by Jimi
And just in today, evidence that most Americans aren't buying the horseshit any more:
Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

Bipartisan backing for carbon capture tax credits, extensive tree-planting efforts ... n-climate/

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 24th, 2020, 10:20 am
by Kelly Mc
craigb wrote:
June 10th, 2020, 11:17 am
Didn't the Beatles say that "Speaking words of wisdom, let it be"
Dont backpack your silly non-commital remarks on my comments. You dont EVER do it to "The Mens Folk" so dont do it to me. Got it? Good.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: June 26th, 2020, 8:46 am
by craigb
Kelly "EVER" is a long time. None of the Men folk bother to come here any more. Back in the day Brian Hubbs, Jim Bass, Billboard, RockRatt, and several others men were victims of my nonsense and replied in kind. But for your sake I will curtail my levity.....

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: August 20th, 2020, 12:58 pm
by Jimi
“We are likely on the path of accelerated sea level rise”
“We have to invent a new worst-case climate warming scenario, because Greenland is already tracking the current one.” ... SKBN25G1RM

“It would have been so easy to be truthful.”
DJ Trump, April 2020, on another topic...but i think it applies here too.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 8th, 2021, 10:36 am
by Richard F. Hoyer
Below is the title of new book dealing with climate change authored by Seven E. Koonin. You can examine his credentials by doing a simple Google search. I have included two book reviews, one critical and one complimentary

Richard F. Hoyer

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters
Book by Steven E. Koonin

A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the ...

Let's Work For Science With Integrity: Steve Koonin's New ... › sites › tilakdoshi › 2021/04/30

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 8th, 2021, 5:27 pm
by jonathan ... t-of-date/

Koonin continues the constant false dilemma, pretending it's "climate change" on one side and "the needs of the poor" on the other side.

Those of use who actually work with the poor see them tremendously suffering from pollution in many, many ways beyond climate change alone. Pretending that greenhouse gases are the only negative effect of overconsumption and fossil fuel burning ignores the numerous negative effects of both extraction and energy production on both our environment and our own lives.

On the other side of the ledger, his suggestion that accelerating energy production is what is needed to improve the lives of the poor is just not matched in reality. What the poor need is better health, better education, and a more even distribution of resources and power. Just look at india - maintaining the same inequalities while super-charging the economy just creates its own new set of problems and is obviously unsustainable.

Those who advocate increased energy production and continued do realize that such a policy degrades our forests, oceans, and agricultural land to a point that will be completely unsustainable in the very near future regardless of what you believe about climate change, right? How do you propose to deal with that?

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 8th, 2021, 5:29 pm
by jonathan
Here's a quick review that identifies some key points that Koonin either is misleading his readers or simply wrong. ... e-science/

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 10th, 2021, 12:30 pm
by Jimi
Horseshit still don't float. ... t-of-date/
Scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science said that Koonin’s critiques are superficial, misleading and marred by overgeneralization. The science at the core of “Unsettled” is fatally out of date, they say, and is based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since then, climate scientists have continued to learn more about the intensity and potentially catastrophic disruption of a warming climate. And while a decade ago, the effects of climate change still seemed a future threat, its impacts—sea level rise; shrinking glaciers; more extreme and frequent storms; drought and wildfire—already are being felt around the world.


“The bottom line is that despite uncertainties in the magnitude and patterns of natural climate variability, human-caused climate change fingerprints have been identified in pretty much every aspect of climate change scientists have looked at,” said Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist and leading climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Climate scientists also noted that Koonin, a theoretical physicist, was skeptical of consensus climate science long before the American Physical Society review.

“What he does is he just takes potshots,” said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, who has helped lead the National Climate Assessment, which Koonin’s book criticizes roundly. “He pulls one figure out of context, and then makes a whole chapter on it.”

Many climate action advocates who are familiar with Koonin’s long-held views are dismayed to see them repackaged as a book, just as President Joe Biden’s administration is seeking to restore the place of the scientific consensus in policymaking after a four-year absence.

“He’s not a fearless ‘truth teller,'” said Santer, referring to a Wall Street Journal headline on a piece about Koonin’s book. “He’s muddying the waters here. He’s making it much more difficult to make informed decisions.”

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 12th, 2021, 7:55 am
by Jimi

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 13th, 2021, 8:33 am
by Jimi
Also recently released, after being delayed for years by the previous administration -

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: May 18th, 2021, 8:42 am
by Jimi
Here's something hopeful, interesting, and pretty clear about the audacity of effort required (and of the opportunities presented to those who aren't implacable deniers or delayers):

International Energy Agency "Net Zero by 2050" report

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: August 21st, 2021, 7:26 pm
by Richard F. Hoyer
There have been a number of developments that pertain to climate change I have recently found in Google searches.

Perhaps the following can put some life back into this part of the forum provided Jimi, Kelly, others have comments.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure › science-magazine-blows-th...

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure

Date: 30/07/21 Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

““It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science ­magazine.”

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: August 26th, 2021, 8:07 am
by Kelly Mc
Its been a while and I realize I actually hope you are right Mr Hoyer.

This is a fantastic planet and I feel protective of it. Imdustry is rampantly consumptive. And excretes horrible stuff.

But I hope you are right.

I dont think its good to carry on the way we do though either way.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: August 27th, 2021, 9:20 am
by Richard F. Hoyer
Kelly Mc.,
I am not certain to what you are referring when you mention “But I hope you are right.” I am just reporting new information I came across relating to the issue of climate change. Actually, I came across two links concerning Dr. Gavin Schmidt as copied below.

You can note there occurs a contradiction between what Dr. Schmidt mentions in January, 2021 versus July, 2021. To truly understand the significance of Dr. Schmidt’s July admission, one needs to examine who is Dr. Gavin Schmidt and his prior positions on climate change models.

It also helps to understand that his admission contradicts the long held positions championed by other NASA and NOAA scientists, his superiors in NASA, and the current administration’s position. What is missing is what compelling evidence forced Dr. Schmidt to change his prior position on the efficacy / reliability of climate models.

And last, the July admission by Dr. Schmidt indicates that all along, the UN-PICC reports have relied on flawed climate models.

Richard FH
Gavin Schmidt: The problem with climate models? (1/22/21) › Environment › Gavin-Schm...
“Gavin Schmidt says there’s nothing really wrong with climate models – in fact, “they’ve done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened.”

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure (7/30/21) › scienc...
“Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.”
‘“It's become clear over the last year or so that we can't avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ...”

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: August 27th, 2021, 7:38 pm
by Richard F. Hoyer
Below is a link to a study recently published this month. I have copied a small part of that article but I urge reading the entire article. At the bottom, I have also included a link from a NASA study a year earlier that indicates just the opposite scenario. This way, you have a choice as to which study may be closest to being correct.

Despite the information in my most recent post that the UN- IPCC reports have been relying on flawed climate models coupled with this new revelation, for the time being I will continue to, 1) wait to see what addition new climate research reveals and 2) wait to see just what actually transpires with the earth’s climate.

With respect to that last point, 2016 has been the warmest year. Although 2020 came close to 2016, every year since 2016 has not been as warm The most recent assessment for 2021 is that this year likely will be cooler than last year. Should that be the case, then five years will have passed all being cooler than 2016. Yet the concentration of CO-2 has steadily increased during this 5 year period.

Richard F. Hoyer
Challenging UN, Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind .. (August 16, 2021 Updated: August 18, 2021 ) › 2021/08/18 › ch...

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

Research Features: Simulations Probe Sun's Effects on Climate (June 16, 2020) › 202006_solarforcing

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 7:49 am
by Richard F. Hoyer
For some unknown reason, the ‘http’ links in my recent posts do not come up with the correct article when entered in Google. So one can enter the story headlines for each article in a Google search and scroll around to find the correct article / link.

This morning, I came across another recent study that contradicts the UN-IPCC contentions about the effects of CO-2 concentrations on climate change.
“The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures” ... 0210502.12

Here is the last sentence of the author’s abstract.
‘This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.”

Richard FH

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: December 25th, 2021, 3:23 pm
by jonathan
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
August 27th, 2021, 7:38 pm
With respect to that last point, 2016 has been the warmest year. Although 2020 came close to 2016, every year since 2016 has not been as warm The most recent assessment for 2021 is that this year likely will be cooler than last year. Should that be the case, then five years will have passed all being cooler than 2016. Yet the concentration of CO-2 has steadily increased during this 5 year period.

Arguments like this are so disingenuous. 2016 was an outlier, why would you use a single outlying year as your reference point?

A different way of saying it is that every single year since 2017 has been much hotter than every year before 2015 and the trend is clearly continuing upwards, that outlier notwithstanding.


The idea that "but 2016 was especially hot!" somehow constitutes an argument against the obvious massive warming trend is just silly.

Re: Climate change revisited

Posted: December 25th, 2021, 3:50 pm
by jonathan
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
September 2nd, 2021, 7:49 am
This morning, I came across another recent study that contradicts the UN-IPCC contentions about the effects of CO-2 concentrations on climate change.
“The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures” ... 0210502.12

Here is the last sentence of the author’s abstract.
‘This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.”

Richard FH

The journal isn't even listed in the top 100 atmospheric science journals, and when I looked up the publisher it turns out to be just another crap-journal from "Science Publishing Group", a Pakistani-based predatory publisher that has started 430 new "journals" since 2012. It's a full-on scam publishing absolutely anything that authors will pay to put out there.

David Coe, the lead author, claims to have "read physics at Oxford in the 1960s", but appears to have then spent his career working in industrial sensor technology with absolutely zero background in climate, atmosphere, geology, or any of the sorts of long-term predictions he's making in this paper. The 2nd author has virtually the exact same background - a retired industrial tech guy with no relevant background in climate at all. The 3rd guy lists his expertise and "electrical engineering" and "petroleum engineering" and all his publications are, once again, in sensor tech.

This appears to be an article by three people from completely unrelated fields with no experience whatsoever in climate science, and published in a predatory journal.

I've asked you before, what is your discernment process for deciding which climate science to believe outside of "whatever agrees with your pre-held assumptions"? There are thousands of papers out there, why do you concentrate on posting the least reputable journals with the least relevant authors?