Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned from his post at the University of California after admitting that global warming was a big scam, in a shocking resignation letter.

From the Telegraph

---

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

Reblog of article by Roger J. Pielke

November 14, 2016

Wikileaks and Me

• 11 Comments

I haven’t had a chance to update this blog with anything related to the surprise (to me at least) at finding myself the subject of an email in the John Podesta email leaks from Wikileaks. That email revealed that an organization that was fouinded and led by Podesta, the Center for American Progress, engaged in a successful effort to have me removed as a writer at 538, the “data journalism” site created by Nate Silver.

The Boulder Daily Camera has a very good series of articles about the revelation that there was an organized political effort against me.

• Wikileaks revelations reveal campaign against Pielke;
• CAP denies campaign against Pielke, laughably;
• CU Boulder Board of Regents defends Pielke.

The multi-year campaign against me by CAP was partially funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, and involved 7 writers at CAP who collectively wrote more than 160 articles about me, trashing my work and my reputation. Over the years, several of those writers moved on to new venues, including The Guardian, Vox and ClimateTruth.org where they continued their campaign focused on creating an evil, cartoon version of me and my research.

Collectively, they were quite successful. The campaign ultimately led to me being investigated by a member of Congress and pushed out of the field.

Motivated by the leaked email, I counted the articles that CAP wrote about me over the years, shown below. To illustrate how significant a figure CAP thought I was — and how absolutely unhinged their campaign was against me — CAP wrote less than 200 articles over the same time period about George W. Bush, president of the United States. I was apparently viewed to be a pretty important guy to warrant all that negative attention!

One example of CAP’s campaign involved a series of over-the-top protestations against a paper that I wrote in 2008 with climate scientist Tom Wigley and economist Chris Green. In it, we argued that the IPCC had baked in too much assumed decarbonization in its scenarios of future emissions and policies.

CAP responded with multiple posts, such as the unhinged, “Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?” There were many more.

I am happy to report that sometimes good science wins out in the end. Our paper has now been cited almost 250 times (Google Scholar). More importantly, our analysis now shows up in the scenarios being used for the 6th assessment of the IPCC. Here is a key figure from our paper (on the left) and a virtually identical one from the recent IPCC scenario paper (on the right):

It is not important to understand the details here (but if you’d like to, our paper is here in PDF), but it is abundantly clear that our analysis was the basis for that used by those who have created the next generation of IPCC scenarios. Our paper is not cited by the IPCC authors – that apparently would be a step too far, given how deeply the campaign of destruction against me has influenced how I am perceived.

But no matter. The ideas that we first presented in 2008, trashed by those who for whatever reason were intent of a campaign of personal destruction, now show up in 2016 as being core to those of the IPCC.

That is pretty sweet.

Share this:

• Press This
• Twitter
• Facebook290
• Google

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

All My 2016 Publications

The Truthiness About Catastrophe Models

My Bridges Columns 2005-2014 in a new eBook

• Posted by rogerpielkejr.

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

Reblog

From www.undeceivingourselves.org (5400 words 1 graphic) | Home | Fast-Find Index

IPCC's abuse of science 2
Accusations, malpractice, malfeasance

Part 2 of an open letter to Australia's Chief Scientist October 2012

By John Happs

This is Part 2 of an open letter of 3 October 2012 from Dr John Happs to Australia's Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb. It includes 46 accusations against the IPCC by experts who contributed in good faith to the IPCC process, 23 examples of IPCC malpractice, 12 examples of IPCC malfeasance, and a final question -- why is Australia's Chief Scientist turning a blind eye?

Dear Professor Chubb,

Continuing on from Part 1. You told the Joint Select Committee that you would get back to them with further information on a number of issues. I wonder if you are planning to get back to the committee with an update on the literature which shows several years of global cooling?

You said: "The question is: are you putting, on top of that, changes that are caused by human activity? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists would say yes." In fact "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists" say no such thing. You may recall how previously I had given you documentary evidence showing how your statement was to be completely incorrect. So you have either not seen it or you have decided to ignore it.

Consensus is against the IPCC
Let me remind you how quickly the consensus has shifted. In the space of 2-3 years, increasing numbers of scientists have become aware of the IPCC's questionable practices. So where is the current consensus?

By way of reply I previously urged you to look up the following petitions by scientists: The Heidelberg Appeal; The Oregon Petition; The Manhattan Declaration; Open Letter to UN Secretary General; The Petition by German Scientists to the Chancellor; The Leipzig Declaration; Statement from Atmospheric Scientists; Letter to the Members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate; Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics; Statement from scientists to President Obama.

I also urged you to look up and bring to the Joint Select Committee's attention the following document: "More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming." Finally I asked you to verify how the IPCC has corrupted climate science by looking at testimony from some of the experts who actually contributed to the IPCC process in good faith. Here are some of their statements. Please bring them to the notice of the Joint Select Committee:

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."
19. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
20. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
21. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."
22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
24. Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
25. Dr Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
26. Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
27. Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
28. Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
29. Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
30. Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a 'consensus of thousands of scientists' are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
32. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
35. Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
36. Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
37. Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
38. Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
39. Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites -- probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?"
40. Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO₂ emissions and climate change."
41. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
42. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
44. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
46. Dr Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed."

So what do the above statements mean?
Professor Chubb, please remind the Joint Select Committee that the above statements are from experts who contributed in good faith to the IPCC process. They are not from a handful of misguided fringe scientists critical of the IPCC process. It should be very clear that: (1) Many former IPCC contributors are now criticising the IPCC's "science" and "process". (2) A majority of scientists now reject the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming.

23 examples of IPCC malpractice

And while you are at it, please inform the Committee about the many cases of IPCC omissions, errors and malpractice which have been documented. Here are just 21 of many examples of malpractice:

1. Example 1. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report in WG1 stated: "A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gas. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase in greenhouse gases." The Summaries for Policymakers, which go out to governments and the media, contained no such uncertainties.
2. Example 2. The IPCC's 1995 Scientific Report draft included the following three statements by IPCC scientists: (1) "None of the [scientific] studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." (2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes." (3) "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." Yet in the IPCC's draft Chapter 8 all three of the above statements were replaced with: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
3. Example 3. Dr Patrick Michaels was Research Professor at the University of Virginia for over 30 years. He recounts how, as a reviewer for the 2007 First Assessment Report, he looked over the draft which clearly documented how Siberia and East Russia had previously been between 2 and 7°C warmer than any post-industrial period. It reported: "Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current Arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yrs BP [before present] and retreated to its present position between 4000 and 3000 yrs BP." This information was removed from the second draft.
4. Example 4. The 1995 Second Assessment Report (Chapter 8) noted: "Many, but not all of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system." This was changed to: "The majority of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system." And the following statement was deleted: "The evidence rests heavily on the reliability of the (still uncertain) estimates of natural variability noise levels."
5. Example 5. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1, Section 8.3.3.3) noted: "While such studies help to build confidence in the reliability of the model variability on interannual to decadal time scales, there are still serious concerns about the longer time scale variability, which is more difficult to validate (Barnett et al., 1995). Unless paleoclimatic data can help us to 'constrain' the century time scale natural variability estimates obtained from CGCMs, it will be difficult to make a convincing case for the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate change signal." This was later deleted.
6. Example 6. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1 Section 8.4.1.1) noted: "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution-related conclusions, for which there is little justification." This was later deleted.
7. Example 7. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1 Section 8.4.2.1) noted: "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." This was later deleted and replaced with: "Implicit in these global mean results is a weak attribution statement -- if the observed global mean changes over the last 20 to 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, some (unknown) fraction of the changes must be due to human influences."
8. Example 8. Dr Willem de Lange, an expert in oceanography, coastal processes and climatic hazards, was listed by the IPCC as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. In fact he did not agree. Nor did he agree with the IPCC projections of sea level rise and threats to Pacific Islands. Dr de Lange indicated how research clearly shows that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and he was convinced that the IPCC projections were unrealistic and that they severely exaggerated the problem. The IPCC ignored his comments.
9. Example 9. Professor Frederick Seitz considers the 1996 IPCC report as: "Not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. ... Many of the contributing scientists object to what is left in the Summaries For Policymakers after the non-scientists have influenced it but their names remain as contributing scientists." Seitz asked for his name to be removed from the report but the IPCC refused, saying that he had contributed to the report, so they had to give him credit. Seitz insisted they remove his name and threatened legal action if they did not comply. Eventually they did.
10. Example 10. The IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers, which is issued to politicians and the media, was prepared and released before the science chapters were written. No matter, because IPCC guidelines specifically say that, where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence and the science reports have to be modified to reflect the political summaries.
11. Example 11. Dr Chris Landsea, of the Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, has made it clear that the IPCC has systematically ignored the science (presented by its own experts) on hurricane intensity. Rather, the IPCC have promoted dramatic scenarios which are not backed up by research findings. Dr Landsea asks the question: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? ... As far as I know, there are none."
12. Example 12. Dr Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the IPCC, announced at a press conference at Harvard University that there was a clear relationship between global warming and the increased intensity of hurricane activity. (Note that Trenberth has no expertise in this area.) Dr Chris Landsea was so annoyed by this unsubstantiated claim that he withdrew from the IPCC. Landsea wrote: "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
13. Example 13. Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT, was Lead Author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report. He relates how, as an insider, he was able to observe how manipulation took place. He noted how the reports and summaries were subject to constant pressure to push findings in a definite direction: "Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC co-ordinators would go around insisting that criticism of (computer) models be toned down, and that "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defence of their statements."
14. Example 14. Professor Paul Reiter heads the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute. Because of his history of excellence in research of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects, the US State Department in 2001 nominated Professor Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC's health chapter. But Reiter was not surprised when the IPCC rejected him as a lead author since he had been a critic of the pseudoscience that the IPCC had disseminated about this matter. Neither was he surprised when the IPCC failed to select any scientists with expertise in mosquito-borne diseases. Reiter reported that, in its Second Assessment Report chapter on human population health, the IPCC displayed "glaring ignorance" about mosquitoes, their survival temperatures and the altitudes where mosquitoes can be found.

Thus the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" stated: "Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life." The IPCC was taking the line (with no supporting evidence) that global warming was increasing the habitats for mosquitoes, putting hundreds of millions of people in the tropics at risk of contracting malaria and dengue fever. They promoted the view that these diseases would spread around the world due to man-made global warming.

In 2005 Reiter testified to a UK parliamentary committee. He said: "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject. Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists." In short, the treatment of this issue by the IPCC was ill-informed, biased, and scientifically unacceptable. Reiter commented emphatically on pre-report meetings: "For the 2001 report, I was a contributing author. And we had these meetings that were absolute bullshit. I mean they had an agenda, and that was it."

15. Example 15. When the IPCC reported: "Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world's energy needs by mid-century", it did not mention that this "80% by mid-century" was based on the claims of lead author Sven Teske, who was also a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but Teske was allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work via the IPCC. But this was nothing new -- the IPCC is renowned for using "grey literature" in support of its claims.
16. Example 16. Related to the above breach, in its 2007 First Assessment Report (Chapter 10, WG 2) the IPCC stated there was a very high chance that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Only one reference was used to substantiate this claim, in the form of a paper (not peer-reviewed) by the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental activist group. Three years later the IPCC conceded that their prediction on vanishing Himalayan glaciers had no basis in fact.
17. Example 17. Much the same thing happened in the 2007 First Assessment Report (Chapter 13, WG 2), where the IPCC stated: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation." This statement was not based on a peer-reviwed scientific repoprt but on a World Wildlife Fund report written in conjunction with the International Union For Conservation of Nature.
18. Example 18. Dr Andrei Kapitsa described how: "A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 UN conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. ... As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the UN declared global warming to be a scientific fact."
19. Example 19. Dr Robert Balling observed: "The IPCC notes that 'No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.'" But this information did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
20. Example 20. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen wrote, in a submission to the UK Parliament: "I inherited the editorship of the journal Energy & Environment from a former senior scientist at the Department of the Environment (Dr David Everest) because we shared doubts about the claims made by environmentalists and were worried about the readiness with which politicians accepted these claims. ... [Because E&E] remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of Climatic Research Unit manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E's disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team. Dr Jones even tried to put pressure on my university department. The emailers expressed anger over my publication of several papers that questioned the 'hockey stick' graph and the reliability of CRU temperature data."
21. Example 21. The IPCC's First Assessment Report (1990) and Second Assessment Report (1995) contained a graph of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age showing temperature shifts far in excess (in range and extent) of anything we saw in the 20th century. (There is ample historic and paleoclimatic data to support this.) So what was the IPCC's response to these inconvenient truths?
22. Example 22. Dr David Deming, geologist at the University of Oklahoma, reported: "I received an astonishing email from an IPCC climate scientist who said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'." Deming commented: "The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th Century warming was anomalous. It had to be gotten rid of." Accordingly, in 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues produced a 1000-year reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. The infamous "hockey stick" became the centre piece for IPCC propaganda and it featured prominently in Al Gore's misguided movie An Inconvenient Truth. Independent reports confirmed that the hockey stick was a political invention, whereupon the IPCC quietly dropped it from subsequent reports.

23. Example 23. In 2010 Dr Benny Peiser reported: "The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence. Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following their advice -- as the Copenhagen summit showed."

Professor Chubb, let me know if you would like to see other examples of IPCC omissions, exaggerations and malpractice. I have many more.

A fair go?
You said: "My job is to make sure that scientists have a fair go at putting the evidence on the table, putting the uncertainties on the table, and having them debated in a rational and civilised way." I find this hard to believe, since you seem to have ignored those scientists (now in the majority) who reject the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming, AND the large number of scientists who formerly contributed to the IPCC process and now publicly criticise it, AND the large number of respected scientists who have publicly accused the IPCC of malfeasance. The last are especially relevant, so let me remind you with a few examples:

12 accusations of malfeasance

1. Dr Vincent Gray, climate consultant, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and expert reviewer for all four IPCC Assessment Reports described the IPCC's climate change statements as: "An orchestrated litany of lies."
2. Dr Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, was explicit about the leaked emails and documents: "The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory, is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns. ... Carbon dioxide was never a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it is the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science."
3. Dr Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne agrees: "Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it's all based on fraud."
4. Dr Christopher Kobus says: "In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data."
5. Dr Hilton Ratcliffe was equally clear: "The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud."
6. Dr Andrei Kapitsa, Russian Antarctic ice core researcher, also considered the Kyoto Protocol as: "The biggest ever scientific fraud."
7. Dr Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS). He said: "Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen ... the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
8. Dr Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, also resigned from the APS over its position on global warming. He objected to their statement that: "the evidence is incontrovertible."
9. Dr William Gray is Emeritus Professor and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado University. He states: "I am of the opinion that (global warming) is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
10. Professor Bob Carter, Research Fellow at James Cook University is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist. Professor Carter describes the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as promoted by the IPCC as: "The greatest self-organised scientific and political conspiracy that the world has ever seen."
11. 11. Dr William Gilbert wants his feelings known: "I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed."
12. 12. Dr Hans Jelbring, Swedish climatologist, is equally specific: "Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community."

Professor Chubb, I suspect that the IPCC is the only organization which can be publicly accused of malfeasance without fear of libel. I can readily imagine the long line of scientists waiting for an opportunity to testify against the IPCC. One final question:

13. Why is Australia's Chief Scientist turning a blind eye?
    Perhaps I am being naive and optimistic but I always thought that a Chief Scientist would have to tell politicians that the science of climate change is far from settled and that the IPCC "science" and "process" are not to be trusted. After all, science is about process, evidence, truth and integrity. Chief Scientists from all countries have to be staunch defenders of those principles. Australia does not need a Chief Scientist who turns a blind eye and tells Government Ministers only what they want to hear.

Sincerely.
Dr John Happs

Click here for original version (you will leave this website)
and follow prompts to Chief Scientist's Call to Arms

From www.undeceivingourselves.org       (5400 words 1 graphic)       Home       Fast-Find Index

Book review: Gregory - Wrightstone. Inconvenient Facts

Gregory's book is the best seller in Environmental Science on Amazon.

After the introduction, the next chapter is 'The greenhouse gas effect', GHGE. GW's book explanation is the alarmist, 'consensus' explanation of GHGE. It is similar to Patrick Moore's view.

GW assumes that the GHGE is a real thing in science. In reality, there is possibly some GHGE, but we don't know what that may be! Because no empirical investigations into this GHGE have ever been properly done. The basic physics of the universe may also be explained in terms of string theory, or not. No empirical validation of a string theory has been done. So we can either accept speculation in science, or we can reject all speculation. Unfortunately - a lot of scientists don't understand that once we accept speculation (such as GHGE) we open the doors to any crackpot idea.

I take the skeptic point-of-view on speculation and hypotheses in science. I will provisionally accept speculation as possible, when that speculation comes with a set of tests. These tests will be experiments or observations which can validate or falsify the idea. But GHGE never came with any tests; therefore science skeptics should just reject it. The existence of a GHGE has always been entirely premised on models. Which are speculation.

No empirical validation of a GHGE has ever been done. Many assumptions and predictions of the basic GHGE model are refuted by real world measurements. So the sensible scientist comes to the conclusion that there is no GHGE. Because science is just an explanation of the world in terms of what we can see and measure in the world. The GHGE claims earth's surface is an average of 33K warmer than it'd be with no GHG in the atmosphere. That 33K is an old calculation which is no longer valid. We now have new data. The new data is ignored because the alarmists already fitted their current models to the old model of how they once thought the GHGE worked. Because they claim their ideas are 'The Consensus', they are locked in, and cannot revise their GHGE to fit new data!

I have actually seen a couple of low-level attempted validation experiments for the GHGE, but the experimentalists confused their GHGE with an effect due to heat capacity. Each gas has it's own heat capacity. This is the ability of the gas to store heat. Kinetic energy is an aspect of heat capacity all gases have. As molecules become more complex they gain more features (called degrees of freedom) such that the kinetic energy aspect eventually falls to 50% or less of total heat capacity

Heat Capacity: C(p,m), Unit = J/mol/K
Argon : 20.8
Air (dry) : 29.07
Nitrogen : 28.8
Carbon dioxide : 37.1

All the inert gases have the same heat capacity as argon. Inert gases owe ALL their heat capacity to a kinetic energy effect.

The experimentalists compared air with CO2 and discovered that CO2 got warmer than air when heated and kept its heat for longer. I believe this is exactly what heat capacity predicts. The experimentalists claimed their measured effects were due to the GHGE. But they should've compared air and CO2 with argon too. According to the experimentalists, air and argon should behave in the same way because neither is a GHG. Only CO2 should differ - it is a GHG. They never looked at how argon behaves; how convenient for their self-fulfilling GHGE prophecy!

Geoffrey Wrightstone's book has much to recommend for it. He writes well, and the book reads well. But his acceptance of a GHGE - despite no scientific evidence for such - means I can only give him 4/5. Because he accepts this GHGE he won't be able to criticise how it's used to make nonsense up and present it as 'settled science'. This book is recommended, but not perfect.

I realize my review is deeply flawed. I seem to be ignoring most of the book, and I'm zooming in on something GW didn't really talk about. Because the GHGE is the fulcrum on which the climate scam rests.

Greenhouse gas effect is not a scientific concept

We can understand the failure of the Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, in explaining climate when we realize it's junk science. We're told man-made climate change is due almost entirely to this GHGE. Given the GHGE is a fairy story thing, not a thing-in-itself, we conclude: there is no evidence for man-made climate change. Here are at least 13 reasons why a greenhouse gas effect is nonsense. Please add to the list if you can.

A bonus point, in the Appendix, gives evidence showing: why climates really warmed since 1980.

Thirteen reasons why a greenhouse gas effect is nonsense

1. In this video, physicist Tom Shula explains why climate models which calculate the so-called greenhouse gas effect are fraud.

   Summary: The climate models assume, 80% of earth's surface cooling is by emission of infrared radiation. Shown in energy balance diagrams such as this. Shula explains how the Pirani gauge shows radiative emission, in air, is less than 1%. Tom explains how and why.

   In a nutshell, climate modellers used the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: I = ε σ T⁴
   
   Intensity = epsilon × sigma × temperature (in Kelvin) raised to the 4th power.

   • σ : sigma, is called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. It has a value 5.67037442 ×10⁻⁸ W m⁻² K⁻⁴
   • ε : epsilon is the emissivity of the matter doing the emitting, is generally between zero and one, although some exotic materials may have an emissivity greater than one. An emissivity of one corresponds to a black body.

   In 1879, Josef Stefan guessed from experiments that the energy emitted by bodies was proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. In 1884, Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) gave a rigorous (mathematical) derivation of this result.

   Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is crucial to their calculations for both the greenhouse gas effect, and radiative forcing. They apply it to earth's surface to calculate earth's radiative emissions. Except: that cannot be done. It's fake science, because the conditions under which the Stefan-Boltzmann Law was derived by ignoring conduction and convections - measuring emissions in a vacuum. A vacuum is essential because it allows experimenters to keep conduction and convection at known values (basically zero!). So there are 3 means of heat transport: radiation, conduction and convection. Only one could be measured in a single experiment. Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere, and the conductive and convective effects at the surface are vastly greater than the radiation; by about 240 times.

   A typical validation of the Stefan-Boltzmann’s law of radiation : is done by measuring the radiation from a filament of the incandescent lamp. The filament is enclosed in a vacuum.

2. GHGE fails most where it should work best. We're told man-made climate change is due to a more intense GHGE, which warms most:
   • at poles,
   • in winter and
   • at night.

   GHGE theory says the Arctic and Antarctica should warm more than the rest of the earth.

   Polar Antarctica just experienced its coldest temperatures on record, in the Southern winter, most of the coldest temperatures measured at night! Ref: South Pole’s Winter Weather Record, by Michael Kile

   Over 25 studies, published in the last 3 years, show Antarctica has been cooling for decades. Ref: NoTricksZone.

3. IPCC made 3 fatal errors in CO₂ assumptions.
   1. CO2 is higher at the Poles than Equator.
   2. When air warms, CO2 goes down and water vapor goes up.
   3. The warming effects of CO2 and water vapor do not add; they oppose each other, opposite IPCC claims
   
4. Warming and cooling are explained by clouds.
   Actual measurements of earth's radiation balance show warming is due to fewer clouds, but COOLING due to a greenhouse gas effect. Less clouds reflect less sunlight away to space, so give earth a lower albedo. More sunlight getting in warms us. Overall the warming is TINY. Study by Dübal & Vahrenholt, 2021; summary & discussion.
   
5. GHGE model assumptions, predictions & mechanisms are falsified by reality. These are empirical falsifications of the GHGE here. By falsification, we mean the model workings are directly contradicted by how the real world works.

   GHGE is falsified by:

   • Refuted assumption. GHGE says more CO₂ increases atmospheric opacity to OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Reality says: no it doesn't
   • Refuted assumption. GHGE says more CO₂ leads to a fall in OLR leaving the atmosphere. There's no evidence for this assumption. OLR rose as surface temperature rose since 1985 (to 1998). GHGE says the surface temperature increase was caused by falling OLR! Impossible: reality diametrically contradicts the conjecture
   • Refuted prediction. GHGE says more CO₂ will increase the atmosphere's specific humidity. Reality (measurements) say no it does not. Yet climate modellers still have the cheek to model increased water vapour in the atmosphere and to predict temperatures 3 times what their model would get without the extra water vapour. Wrong by 3 times more than they should be.
   • Refuted prediction. With increased CO₂, GHGE predicts a hotspot in the upper and mid troposphere over the tropics. No such hotspot is found; although scientists have tried homogenizing (doctoring) balloon observations to get the number they want.
   • Refuted GHGE mechanism. GHGE, says: atmospheric water vapour, WV, is a greenhouse gas; so more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more WV. This extra WV then behaves as a positive (reinforcing) feedback to warm the surface even more. But, in heavily irrigated regions, the surface temperature can be over 6C cooler than nearby non-irrigated regions. Irrigated regions have more water vapour in the atmosphere above the region. GHGE say it's hotter with more WV. Reality says it's cooler! The paradox is, of course, explained as evaporative cooling of the surface. Researchers call this the Irrigation Cooling Effect, ICE
6. GHGE is Refuted by planetary data. Ned Nikolov made an excellent video which reveals why GHGE is logically senseless & how adiabatic processes better describe features such as the atmospheric lapse rate. The authors call this an atmospheric thermal effect, ATE; it is empirically derived.
   
   All planets with thick atmospheres show a Lapse rate. This Lapse rate does not depend on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It depends on the mass of gases. As density changes so does the Lapse rate:
   
   In the diagram above the Lapse rate is a feature of the Troposphere. The Troposphere is the atmosphere closest to the surface (under the Tropopause); where about 90% of a planet's atmosphere is found. In the diagram, the Tropopause(s) are just below where the grey dotted line is in the middle of the diagram; approximately below 0.1 bar pressure. In other words, the troposphere is the part of a planet's atmosphere at a pressure above ~ 0.13 bar. [note: the y-axis in on a logarithmic scale]
7. When radiosonde data (from atmospheric balloons), is analysed from the point of view of density, the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state (only 2 at night & early morning; 3rd one merges into 2nd) corresponding to 3 regions:
   1. Tropopause/Stratosphere
   2. Troposphere
   3. Boundary Layer (water dominated). Nearest surface.
   When we compare this reality with the radiative model of Manabe and Strickler, we see one is real. The other is fantasy.
   
   
   Balloons in the Air: Understanding weather and climate, Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly; CERES.
8. Lapse Rate Fallacy.

   The basic model of the greenhouse gas effect - used to calculate climate sensitivity is nonsense. It ignores actual atmospheric behaviour. For instance, the model says adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the EEH (effective emission height), which caused radiation to be emitted at a cooler temperature, therefore lowering the ERL (effective radiation level) temperature. The EEH being the altitude at which IR goes on a one way exit ride to space. All of this supposedly causes an imbalance at the top of the troposphere (where the EEH / ERL are). This imbalance is than copied to the surface due to the Lapse Rate!! Their model actually treats the Lapse Rate as a 'thing'; rather than what it is: an artifact of other things!

   This is basically Mickey Mouse climate modelling. The kind of thing a High School student could see through.

9. There's No GHGE on Venus. Long ago, in 1969, scientists claimed a runaway GHGE was responsible for Venus' high surface temperature. Venus became the poster child for global warming on earth. With dire warnings: look what can happen to Venus, the same will happen to earth unless we change our evil ways. In reality a GHGE on Venus is impossible, as explained here by Dr Robert Ian Holmes.
   
   Five reasons why Venus has no GHGE
   1. Venus rotates slowly with a night 58.4 times longer than an earth day; almost an 8½ week night. Yet the difference in surface temperature on Venus is 732K = night, 737K = day. Only 5K over an 8½ week period. This temperature change on Venus over 1401 (earth) hours is LESS than the difference in average temperature over a single earth day-night cycle of about 12 hours (from 3pm to 3am on Earth). How can a GHGE still work after so long a night, when this hypothetical GHGE supposedly relies on back-radiation? If surface temperature on Venus was only a function of daytime warming & night-time cooling, mitigated by back-radiation warming, then the variation (from day to night) would be vastly more than empirical observations show.
      1. As the Venusian cooling period is 8½ earth weeks, the day/night temperature difference would be far greater than 5C
      2. The 'back-radiation' supposedly turning Venus into a run-away greenhouse effect catastrophe zone would fall significantly at night - by many hundreds of degrees.
      3. Where does that massive backradiation - required for Venus's GHGE - come from? Especially after 8 weeks of Venusian night. OLR is supposed to be 'in balance' with incoming sunlight (after the albedo effect is accounted for). But there's no sunlight at night!
   2. Venus has a very high albedo. Most sunlight is actually reflected away from the planet. Venus actually gets less net sunlight than earth! GHGE says Venus, without a greenhouse gas effect, should be cooler than earth! Even with a GHGE the theory only predicts Venusian GHGE due to CO2 will be 18C warmer than earth's. CO2 supposedly accounts for a CO2 GHGE contribution of 8K. So the GHGE contribution to Venus's surface temperature should be 8 + 18 = 26K.
      
      P.S. The total affect of the GHGE on earth's surface temperature = 33 C, according to the GHGE. Daytime temperature is actually an average of 464 C
   3. Venus's pressure is so high that CO₂ will be a supercritical fluid for the lowest 4km of atmosphere. How will a GHGE still work in the lowest 4km?
   4. Venus's atmosphere is optically opaque to sunlight, so only 10% of incoming solar radiation, 20 W/m² of direct solar radiation warms the surface. It would need a back radiation of > 15000 W/m² to explain the high Venusian surface temperature in terms of a GHGE. How does Venus generate a back-radiation 750 times the magnitude of its incoming radiation?
   5. Venus's atmosphere rotates westward, at about 70km in altitude, at 60× its rotation speed! If effects such as this can't be explained, why does anyone accept this GHGE explanation?

   The greenhouse gas effect, or runaway GHGE was never an explanation for Venus. It was a bad idea rail-roaded through by left-winger who cannot do debate, nor science.

   Comparison of Venus and Earth (NASA data).

   	Venus	Earth
   Solar irradiance (W/m²)	2601.3	1361
   Solar average (W/m²)	650.3	340¼
   Bond Albedo	0.77	0.31
   Geometric albedo	0.689	0.434
   Surface temperature (K)	737	288
   Black body temperature (K)	227	254
   Outgoing Longwave radiation (W/m²)	160	238
   Surface pressure (bar)	92	1.013
   Surface density (kg/m³)	65	1.2
   CO2	96.5%	0.04%
   Atmospheric mass (kg)	~4.8 x 1020	5.1480 × 1018
   Length of day (hours)	2802.0	24.0

   
   

   Venusian Night

   Venus rotates slowly with a night 58.4 times longer than an earth day; almost an 8½ week night. Yet the difference in surface temperature on Venus, day to night, is just 5K. 732K at night, and 737K in the day. How can a GHGE still work after so long a night?

   The greenhouse gas effect is supposedly due to back-radiation warming its surface. Where is this back radiation coming from after 8 weeks of night? The temperature on the Venusian surface = 459C, or 732K, even at night. A GHGE predicts that the surface temperature should cool far more than this at night.

   • Backradiation can't be coming from the day side of Venus because radiation travels in straight lines, not in a circle around the planet.
   • Much of the heat radiation emitted from Venus's surface must go right out to space without being absorbed by the atmosphere. It goes through the atmospheric window which CO₂ does not absorb. On average Venus emits 160 W/m² to space.

   During the night, lasting 8.34 weeks, each square metre of Venus on the night side loses ~807 million joules as OLR. No new radiation arrives to keep its surface hot. So the total net loss, per square metre, is 807 million joules! Yet the surface stays hot; it only cools by 5°C compared to day! As so much energy is lost (~807 million joules over the night) the downwelling flux must fall significantly. The greenhouse gas effect on Venus seems to be a perpetual motion machine, conjuring endless amounts of backradiation from nowhere, despite huge losses of OLR to space. The mechanism which really keeps the surface hot is called the Atmospheric Thermal Effect, ATE, as described by Nikolov and Zeller.

   Does a runaway GHGE make sense

   Venus has far more CO₂ than earth. The absorbance of infrared radiation by CO₂ falls off logarithmically. To get 1C average warming on earth we need twice as much CO₂, 2¹ times. To get 2C average warming on earth we need four times as much CO₂, 2² times. To get 18C worth of warming on earth, we'd need 2¹⁸ more CO₂ on earth. That's more CO₂ than Venus has!

   It looks like the GHGE on Venus is just cooking the books. The science makes no sense. One can cook the books easily with models. They are complex things, hard to check, published in obscure scientific journals which cost about $36 just to read ONE article!

10. Climate models are wrong. - the so-called General Circulation Models, GCMs, depend on a GHGE present in the GCM as either a sub-model or entered as a parameter. GCM forecasts are wrong. Now we know why.
    
    Climate modellers have written papers and books giving some reasons why the greenhouse gas effect is wrong. Here are some important criticisms of climate models, by modellers: David M.W. Evans, Chris Essex, Rex Fleming, William Happer, Mototaka Nakamura, Ross McKitrick, Ferenc Miskolczi,
11. No empirical support by experiment nor direct observation. The Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, has only ever been a conjecture. There was never any empirical support for it. GHGE says that earth's surface is 33C warmer because of GHG in the atmosphere. This calculation is based on flawed logic & bad physics; which GHGE supporters never question. Because questioning is 'climate denial' - a cancellation offense.

    I've baited GHGE supporters to show me their empirical studies. They have nothing which shows a surface temperature increase due to GHGE. Studies claiming temperature changes due to GHGE typically compare air with CO₂. These studies do not account for differing heat capacities of CO₂ and air. Also: the greenhouse gas it typically warmed in conditions of constant volume, not seen in a real atmosphere. Ned Nikolov's explanation of the Greenhouse-Effect-In-a-Bottle Experiment stress how the constant volume causes warming. Note: It would be easy for experimenters to use a variable volume.
    
    Inert gases all have even lower heat capacity (see table below) than nitrogen, which has lower heat capacity than CO2. The essential requirement to include Argon as a control seems to be always ignored! Their toy experiments only ever compare CO2 to air.
    
    A Comparison between CO₂ plus air against argon should be essential in these desktop experiments. Because:

    • Argon is inexpensive
    • Argon has a density closer to CO₂ than air. One could devise experiments of CO₂ plus air against argon and air with both mixtures having the same density.
    • Argon has a different heat capacity to CO₂ and air.
    • Argon has no GHGE
    • Scrubbed, dried air has no GHGE
    
    There's a long list of these experiments and classroom demonstrations here [1-9]. With a refutation [10]. But why are there none by alarmists using argon?
    
    Heat capacity / density / Specific Gravity

    		Heat capacity, Cp,m	Density
    		Unit: J·mol−1·K−1	NTP	STP	Specific Gravity
    CO2		37.1	1.842	1.977	1.519
    air (dry)		29.07	1.205	1.293	1.000
    argon		20.8 C	1.661	1.7837	1.38

    1. NTP - Normal Temperature and Pressure - is defined as 20°C (293.15 K, 68°F) and 1 atm ( 101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)
    2. STP - Standard Temperature and Pressure - is defined as 0°C (273.15 K, 32°F) and 1 atm (101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)

    Table of heat capacities of common gases here.

12. Prof Nir Shaviv - presents a number of points to refute CO₂ as a cause to climate change: Where the IPCC has Gone Wrong
13. Pathetic arguments support the GHGE & climate alarmists cannot debate. I've shown above that the GHGE is contradicted multiple times by data. Perhaps scientists can devise a better scientific model which matches the data? In fact climate alarmist scientists did their utmost to spike other GHGE atmospheric models and have often tried to destroy the careers of scientists independent enough to think outside their straight-jacket.
    
    Climate alarmists pride themselves on refusing to debate the science. They say the science is settled and they will not debate "deniers". In fact they cannot debate because they have no good evidence to support their ideas.
    
    They defend their GHGE by repeating logic fallacies - such as appeal to authority, or - when they discuss the science - they will repeat their logical model of the GHGE and declare it settled science, show an IR spectrograph of earth's outgoing longwave radiation! When asked to show proof that a GHGE warms earth's surface, this spectrograph is all they have. To believe a GHGE warms earth's surface one must believe their model is Gospel. The spectrograph is not proof of GHGE because in order to believe alarmists surface warming calculations one must accept every model assumption they make.
14. Little new empirical data despite massive increases in funding. Given how little data supports this GHGE, you'd assume scientists would be eager beavers - doing validations and falsifications (with actual empirical data). Despite a massive increase in climate science funding after Obama was elected, we saw little new fundamental empirical science about the GHGE. The official line seems to be what politicos tell scientists: "the science is settled". Most of what we see from climate alarmists are studies which assume a GHGE and then conclude something awful will happen because of the assumptions they make. To the best of my knowledge - no GHGE-believing scientist ever attempted a falsification experiment or observation.
    
15. There's no legitimate science behind it & the IPCC process is unscientific.
    The most recent IPCC report claimed that climate variability was ZERO. Climate variability is the IPCC term for natural climate change. In other words, the IPCC say 100% of climate change is man-made! This means IPCC don't accept that this years' record colds (coldest on record) in Antarctica can be due to natural causes! The extremism of the IPCC with their nonsense claims of ZERO natural climate change mean we should ignore everything they say about the climate system. If one is prepared to tell ONE lie, then there's no limit to the lies one can tell. Now the IPCC are discounted, who's left to defend the GHGE?
    
    In fact, the IPCC process is politically driven not scientifically driven. For example the Summary For Policymakers, SPM is entirely written by politicos with only a couple of scientists present as observers. After the SPM is done, the actual scientific report WG1 is edited and amended to ensure it agrees with what the politicos decided!
    
    This is how the IPCC describe their SPM:

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, and the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change.

16. Hat tip to this blog: Global warming - not caused by CO₂

Appendix:

1. If not GHGE, then what?

   Climate warming over the last few decades is explained as a change in cloud cover. More clouds = cooling. Fewer clouds = warming. Because more clouds reflect more sunlight back out to space.

   • Atmospheric ionisation and cloud radiative forcing; Henrik Svensmark, Jacob Svensmark, Martin Bødker Enghoff & Nir Shaviv, 2021
   • 2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
   • Don Easterbrook wrote a book which collates the results of 140 papers. The research shows that solar magnetic variability causes major climate changes. More or less cloud is the solar vector of change. The Solar Magnetic Cause Of Climate Changes And Origin Of The Ice Ages, 2019 by Dr. Don J Easterbrook

2. Venus Calculations

   1. How much sunlight falls on Venus?

      2601.3 W/m² of sunlight is directed at Venus. But Venus is a sphere, so to calculate the average falling on a square metre of sphere we divide incoming solar radiation by half. Getting : ½ × 2601.3 = 1300.65 W/m².

      That (above) is during the day. Averaging over the whole day/night we must divide by another half: ½ × 1300.65 = 650.375 W/m².

      But Venus's high albedo of 0.77 means 77% is reflected out to space. Only 23% is absorbed. 23% of 650.375 = 149.575 W/m². This is far less than earth absorbs (Earth: 235 W/m²). Venus gets only 64% the sunshine of earth! It ought to be a lot colder. This is the origin of the idea of a runaway GHGE on Venus. We calculated it should be a lot colder. It is really a lot hotter. We invented a runaway greenhouse gas effect to explain it.

      Abiabatic Compression Heats / Atmospheric Thermal Effect

      In reality Venus's hot surface temperature is easily explained by the adiabatic compression, AKA: the Atmospheric Thermal Effect. A surface temperature of 737K is a lot, and many people think an ATE cannot manage such warming. Step back. Consider how does a condensed mass of hydrogen create a new sun? Temperatures of 100 million K or more are required to initiate fusion in a young sun. Hydrogen is NOT a GHG, so it does not trap radiation. So if a yet to be sun can reach 100 million K at its core by adiabatic compressive heating just before fusion can begin - then Venus can reach 737K at its surface.

      Summary: About 77% of incoming radiation is reflected away from Venus. So only 23% is absorbed. About 12% of the non-reflected radiation reaches the surface, and 88% is absorbed by the thick atmosphere (Mostly by sulphuric acid). Less than 3% of incoming solar radiation reaches Venus's surface to warm it; just under 20 W/m². That's not enough to give Venus a surface temperature of 737 K. A massive 15000 W/m² of down-welling infrared would be needed according to the GHGE! At least 750 times the solar radiation. Where would that come from? Try to remember that OLR originating at the surface (upward IR) travels at the speed of light, and much of it goes right out to space. On average Venus emits 160 W/m² to space. It doesn't sound a lot but it means every second each square metre of Venus loses 160 joules of energy. During the whole night of 58.35 days, each square metre of Venus on the night side loses ~ 807 million joules. In such a situation how can the downwelling flux of GHGE supposedly warming the surface remain at 15000 W/m²? Because, remember the surface of Venus at night only gets 5K cooler (732 K) than during its day (737 K)

   2. How much more CO₂ does Venus have, & how much warmer should GHGE make Venus?

      The Venus atmosphere is at 92 times the pressure of earth's. Atmospheres of Venus and Earth have CO₂ at 96% and 0.04% respectively. Venus has a lot more CO₂!

      Question: How much more CO2 does Venus have than earth?

      Answer: My 1st (back of the envelope) calculation gives: 92 × 96.5 ÷ 0.04 = 222,000 ×
      My 2nd calculation is: ( 96.5% × 4.8 x 10²⁰ ) ÷ (0.04% × 5.1480 × 10¹⁸) = 224,942 ×

      According to the GHGE conjecture, the infrared absorbance of CO₂ falls off logarithmically. Each doubling of CO₂ increases the GHGE by 1C.

      Question: How many doublings of earth's CO₂ will give us Venus's CO₂?.

      Answer: Two raised to the power of 18 = 262,144; 2¹⁸ = 262,144. And 262,144 is just a bit bigger than the 224,942 times the amount of CO₂ on Venus, compared to earth. So if earth had Venus's CO₂ atmosphere, we'd expect earth to be 18C warmer; according to GHGE conjecture!

      Remember: Earth's atmosphere supposedly a gives a positive water vapour feedback; but it is not observed in reality on earth.

      Notice how the GHGE temperature increase, due to extra CO₂ (4th column), is just the same as the power of 2 (2nd column) ! This is a neat coincidence.

      Runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus? I calculate Venus's extra temperature as 18C more - according to a GHGE. But, remember, Venus gets LESS sunshine than Earth, because so much more is reflected back to space, and very little of that sunshine reaches the surface. Nearly all is absorbed by the atmosphere.

      In reality Venus's surface temperature = 737 K, earth's = 288 K. The difference is +449 K. I smell a rat. It seems to me they really took some liberties with this calculation for their runaway GHGE calculation back in 1969.
      

      Earth CO2	Power of 2	Multiplier	CO2 GHGE temperature increase °C
      400 ppm	20		0
      800 ppm	21	2 ×	1
      1600 ppm	22	4 ×	2
      3200 ppm	23	8 ×	3
      6400 ppm	24	16 ×	4
      …	…	…	…
      …	216	65,536 ×	16
      …	217	131,072 ×	17
      …	218	262,144 ×	18

   3. How much energy does Venus lose at night?

      The flux to space = 160 W/m². (160 watts per square metre).
      A watt is a unit of power; 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

      How many seconds in 58.35 days?
      = 58.35 × 24 × 60 × 60 = 5,041,440

      How many joules of energy are lost during the night?
      = 160 × 5,041,440 = 806,630,400

      During the night, each square metre of Venus, on the night side, has a net loss ~ 807 million joules.

References

1. R. M. Fuller, “Greenhouse effect study apparatus,” Am. J. Phys. 41, 443–443 (1973). DOI:10.1119/1.1987255
2. T. Lister, Classic Chemistry Demonstrations (Royal Chemical Society, London, 1996), pp. 171–173.
3. S. B. Lueddecke, N. Pinter, and S. A. McManus, “Greenhouse effect in the classroom: A project- and laboratory-based curriculum,” J. Geosci. Educ. 49, 274–279 (2001). [PDF]
4. Royal Meteorological Society, “Demonstrate the greenhouse effect,” (www.rmets.org/activities/schools/greenhouse-effect.php). [Dead Link]
5. Royal Meteorological Society, “The Greenhouse Effect,” (https://www.metlink.org/experiment/the-greenhouse-effect/).
6. C. F. Keating, “A simple experiment to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases,” Phys. Teach. 45, 376–378 (2007). DOI: 10.1119/1.2768699
7. Nuffield Foundation and the Royal Society of Chemistry, “Modelling the greenhouse effect”, https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/modelling-the-greenhouse-effect/1543.article
8. Sieg, Philip & Berner, William & Harnish, Peter & Nelson, Philip. (2019). A Demonstration of the Infrared Activity of Carbon Dioxide. Physics Teacher. 57. DOI:10.1119/1.5095383. [PDF]
9. Levendis YA, Kowalski G, Lu Y, Baldassarre G. 2020 “A simple experiment on global warming. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7(9): 192075. doi: 10.1098/rsos.192075

10. ---

    P. Wagoner, C. Liu and R. G. Tobina, “Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics” Am. J. Phys., 78(5), 536-540 (2010). DOI: 10.1119/1.3322738

11. ---

    Ingersoll, Andrew P. (1969). "The Runaway Greenhouse: A History of Water on Venus" (PDF). Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 26 (6): 1191–1198. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<1191:TRGAHO>2.0.CO;2
12. Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020, Atmosphere 2021, 12(10), 1297; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297

13. ---

    Happer, UNC 9-8-2014, "Why has there been no global warming for the past decade?" (NR); Key lecture.
14. Why Has Global Warming Paused? (Lecture) - William Happer.
15. Happer W. Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A. 29. DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X14600033
16. Van Wijngaarden and Happer, 2020, Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, Link: arXiv:2006.03098 [physics.ao-ph]
17. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. B23:275-364, 2009 DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X; Link: arXiv:0707.1161 [physics.ao-ph]
18. Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, 2003, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming
19. Joseph E Postma The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 44 Pages·2011
20. Joseph E Postma ... Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - I Love My 31 Pages·2011
21. Joseph E Postma ... Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Gas Effect 85 Pages·2012
22. Joseph Postma, 2019, The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History

23. ---

    Don J. Easterbrook (Edited By), Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2nd Ed., 2016; "EBCS2016"
24. Don J. Easterbrook, Greenhouse Gases, Chapter 9 of EBCS2016
25. David M.W. Evans. The Notch-Delay Solar Hypothesis, Chapter 19 EBCS2016
26. David M.W. Evans. Correcting Problems With the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity, Chapter 20 EBCS2016
27. Chris Essex. Has several articles and co-wrote the book Taken by Storm, 2003
28. Rex Fleming. False Alarm, 2020
29. William Happer, ex director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, and inventor of the sodium guide star, has important criticisms of greenhouse gas models: 2014, 2014, 2014, 2021.
30. Nakamura Mototaka, 2018, Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis
31. Nakamura, Stone, and Marotzke, Destabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation by Atmospheric Eddy Transports, Journal of Climate, 01 Dec 1994, 1870–1882, DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<1870:DOTTCB>2.0.CO;2
32. Richard A. Kerr. Climate Modelling's Fudge Factor Comes Under Fire, SCIENCE 265(5178), p. 1528 • DOI: 10.1126/science.265.5178.1528
33. Ross McKitrick, Checking for model consistency in optimal fngerprinting: a comment, Climate Dynamics, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-021-05913-7
34. Ferenc Miskolczi, Research Gate: 21 publications
    Summary by Clive Best
    Summary by Ron Clutz
35. John O'Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Claes Johnson, Tim Ball, 2010, Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
36. George Chilingar, Derek Alker, Tim Ball, Pierre Latour, John O'Sullivan (Editor), 2020, The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap