Climate crisis shattered: doubt no more

What a delight it is to republish this story from CFACT by David Wojick. As he says, “burning fossil fuels can have no further impact on global warming.” Can we believe this? One huge clue is the fact that so far “three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic.” They only do that when the paper damages their cause. I’ve skimmed the paper and look forward to comments from people who can follow it. One conclusion fascinates me: “One greenhouse gas interferes with, and diminishes, the forcings of all others. But the self-interference of a greenhouse gas with itself, or saturation, is a much larger effect than interference between different gases.”

Study suggests no more CO2 warming

By October 26th, 2020

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency.  No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.

This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases?

In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests.

Happer is probably best known to our readers as a leading skeptical scientist. He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and recently served on the staff of the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world class radiation physicist at Princeton. His numerous peer reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers.

In this study Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) have worked through the saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint is titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases“. They have gone far beyond the work done to date on this complex problem.

To begin with, while the standard studies treat the absorption of radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy, H&W analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, which make up these bands. This line by line approach has been an emerging field of analysis, often giving dramatically new results.

Nor do they just look at absorption. Here is how Professor Happer put it to me:

You would do our community a big favor by getting across two important points that few understand. Firstly: Thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Secondly: How the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude is as important as the concentration of greenhouse gases.

So they looked hard, not just at absorption but also including emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is exceedingly complex but the conclusions are dramatically clear.

Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this:

For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations...

Their graphical conclusions are especially telling:

Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude…

The other three greenhouse gases they analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also saturated but not extremely so like water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also relatively minor in abundance compared to CO2, which in turn is small compared to H2O.

Clearly this is work that the climate science community needs to carefully consider. This may not be easy given that three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful. Alarmism is in control of the journals, censoring contrary findings, hence the preprint version.

Undaunted, H&W are now extending their analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science gets dangerous global warming, not from the CO2 increase alone, but also using positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks. Given that carbon dioxide and water vapor are both extremely saturated, it is highly unlikely that cloud feedbacks alone can do much damage, but it requires careful analysis to know this for sure. Stay tuned.

In the meantime the present work needs to be front and center as we strive for rational climate science. Professors William Happer and William van Wijngaarden are to be congratulated for an elegant and timely breakthrough.

Views: 182

29 Thoughts on “Climate crisis shattered: doubt no more

  1. Gwan on 27/10/2020 at 10:10 pm said:

    Hopefully the consensus will start to crumble .
    Don’t hold your breath as there is far to much at stake as this was never about climate .
    As I have stated before there is no proof that the doubling of CO2 will raise the earths temperature by more than .6 of one degree Celsius the effect is logarithmic and that is basically what Happer and Van Wijngaarden have found .
    The theory of global warming relies on the tropical hotspot and positive water vapour feed back.
    Neither have been proven to exist and on top of that the effects of clouds have not been modeled as they both cool and warm the earth and more clouds will reflect more of the suns rays back to space .
    There is so much nonsense about emissions that it is fraudulent the way emissions are calculated .
    The theory of global warming -climate change is that we are extracting and combusting fossil fuel that has been locked up beneath the ground for millions of years and the resulting CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm .
    If that is so how can CO2 from the atmosphere absorbed by vegetation and then back to the atmosphere qualify as emissions . This is a cycle and there is no way that this should ever be counted as our emissions here in New Zealand or any where in the world.
    James Shaw our climate change minister ? counts all our plantation forest logging as emissions .
    Stop and think for a minute .If these trees had not been planted the CO2 would still be in the atmosphere
    therefore as the timber is used and gradually returns the CO2 to the atmosphere over many years.
    A new crop of trees absorbs CO2 and in 28 to 30 years they will absorb much more than the what would be returned to the atmosphere as sawn timber will be around for up to 100 years .
    70% of our timber is exported yet these exports are counted as our emissions ,How does this happen ?
    Does Saudi Arabia sell oil to the world and count those exports as emissions ?
    Of course not they are counted in the country where the fuel is used .
    Then we look at enteric methane from farmed livestock and the same argument is that the process is a cycle and all the fodder that farmed animals consume has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and the very small amount of methane emitted during digestion breaks down in the upper atmosphere in 8 to 10 years into CO2 and water vapour .
    The process is a cycle and not one additional atom or molecule containing carbon is added to the atmosphere over any time frame .
    Jump up and down and scream that methane has a lot more heating power than CO2 .
    That may be so BUT the atmospheric methane levels flat lined from 1999 to 2008 when world coal production hovered around 4.7 billion tonnes year on year ,
    2008 saw world coal production move up and it has now exceeded 8 billion tones and methane levels have increased in line with this increase .
    Blame the COAL and leave the cows alone to provide food for the world .
    A lot more farmed livestock to keep vegetation under control around this country would prevent these fires that we have seen in the South Island .
    And what happened to all that dry vegetation that was burnt ? It is all back in the atmosphere and James Shaw wont count that as out emissions will he .
    I hope that some common sense will prevail but we might be waiting a long time .
    Farming to feed the world .

    • Richard Treadgold on 27/10/2020 at 10:53 pm said:

      A very full response, Graham, thanks. I must say I agree with a lot of what you say; a few points here and there I might quibble with (but they don’t matter). We’re all waiting now on some scientific scrutiny and comment on their paper. Cheers.

  2. Rick on 29/10/2020 at 5:57 am said:

    This paper obviously has momentous significance for the politics of climate change, because if its conclusions are correct they utterly destroy the so-called ‘scientific’ basis of the alarmists’ worldview and their world revolutionary crusade that’s built upon it. However, I think its significance for science, although potentially just as momentous in the long term, is not so great right now, because its analysis and conclusions have not yet been tested and verified empirically by independent scientists. And given the shambolic, corrupt and highly politicised condition of modern ‘climate science’, I fear we could have a long time to wait before that essential scientific work will get done.

    So the question I am asking myself (and anyone who feels they can answer it) is that of whether or not this completely unverified set of purely theoretical results can really present a serious threat to the climate alarmist establishment. I think the establishment will already have judged that it can and that is why the mainstream journals are refusing to publish this paper.

    But the climate alarmist establishment is doing whatever it thinks it will take to win its insane global war against airborne plant-food and it is already operating beyond the reach of the law. I think Prof’s Happer and van Wijngaarden would be well-advised to check their life-insurance and take their families away to safe hiding places – just as a precaution, you understand.

    • Peter Pauling on 29/11/2020 at 6:56 am said:

      The atmosphere is not saturated with CO2 with respect to radiation, for the simple reason the atmosphere is not enclosed.

      The atmospheric gases like CO2 are well mixed but there is a gradient in density from the surface to the top. At the bottom it is pretty much saturated.

      Adding more CO2 increases the density at the top. For the air to be thin enough for radiation to be lost to space you then need to look higher.

      The journals will not the paper. No conspiracy, the paper is fundamentally wrong.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/11/2020 at 1:18 pm said:

      Peter Pauling,

      You refer to mixing ratios and indeed atmospheric gases are constantly said by IPCC to be “well mixed” but they’re patchy. Witness this early NASA visualisation from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) from one month in 2014. This article at WUWT reveals that NASA have been strangely reluctant to publish data from this long-awaited satellite. The scale is difficult to determine but I think I can distinguish nine distinct colours in the legend, representing a range of 35 ppmv, which would be about 4 ppmv per colour. So the image shows distinct differences between atmospheric concentrations of about 4 ppmv, occurring prolifically across the globe. The increase in 2014 was 2.20 ppmv, which means the colours in the image represent between at least 0.5 and 2 years’ increase, so the mixing is taking up to 2 years or more to accomplish. I’m unpersuaded that CO2 is terribly well mixed. Nor is that giant among greenhouse gases, H2O (ever ignored by the giants among IPCC climate science who claim its concentration is determined only by temperature, a stupid assertion that is easily refuted).

      The adiabatic lapse rate is caused by gravity. How do you know that radiative saturation is occurring at the bottom and not at the top? What does that mean for your hypothesis that we’re causing dangerous temperature rise with our emissions? Don’t forget that the emission temperature falls as the emission altitude rises.

      You know why the journals will not publish that excellent paper? So tell us why. You know the paper is fundamentally wrong? So explain why it’s wrong. Then explain why these two distinguished scientists (with more published papers than you’ve had hot dinners, lad!) forgot the extraordinary fact that the atmosphere is unconfined. How glib you are.

    • Rick on 30/11/2020 at 3:14 am said:

      Thanks for expounding your personal theory of atmospheric radiative physics, Peter. Where has it been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? I shall wait for you to provide the relevant link to enable me to view your paper before discussing it further.

      Regarding the actual topic of this blog-entry, you say:

      “The journals will not (publish?) the paper. No conspiracy, the paper is fundamentally wrong.” (my insert – Rick)

      Have you actually read the paper yourself? Do you understand that the authors are claiming to have used precisely the same basic data and the same ‘line-by-line’ method of analysis which the climate establishment claims to have used to produce its estimate of the atmospheric warming effect of CO2 and the authors’ analysis has produced a radically different answer?

      If the paper is fundamentally wrong as you say it is, then what specific flaws have you have found in it? That is to say, what exactly do you find is incorrect with their data and/or analysis, and why?

      And if the paper does contain flaws as you imply, shouldn’t the scientific journals enlist their peer-reviewers to look for them and pick them out by actually peer-reviewing the paper instead of rejecting it out of hand as the authors suggest the journals are doing?

      Rejecting scientific propositions out of hand whilst claiming to be open to considering them is hardly the practice of honest science, don’t you agree?

  3. Simon on 29/10/2020 at 6:18 am said:

    Last week you were saying that there is insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to affect the climate. This week you are saying there is so much CO2 that it has saturated the infrared spectra. How do you internalise these logical inconsistencies?

  4. Richard Treadgold on 29/10/2020 at 9:05 am said:


    When you’re not being rude you’re still irritating.

    Whom are you addressing? What did they say?

  5. Gwan on 29/10/2020 at 11:55 am said:

    Its quite simple Simon,the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small at 415 parts per million and the effect is logarithmic .
    Do you know what that means Simon? The first 100 parts per million has the greatest effect .
    The next 100 parts per million has only half as much effect and the next 200 parts per million which is in effect doubling has only half as much again .
    This study shows that the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 and water vapour so there can be no more heating caused by either gas .
    This has always been known but some scientists have tried to make names for themselves by proposing that CO2 will cause runaway global warming .
    The theory of global warming relies (or should I write lies on) the tropical hotspot and positive water vapour feed back .
    Despite frantic searching and false claims these have never been proven to exist .
    If there was positive water vapour feed back global warming would have occurred in the past when CO2 has been much higher .
    Water vapour is by far the dominant so called green house gas but it both warms and cools this earth .
    If an increase in water vapour could lead to runaway warming it would have happened by now .
    This study confirms this .
    Come back with some proof that our climate is going to spiral out of control Simon . There is no proof except in the heads of the useful idiots as those scientists pushing this scam know it is not going to happen

  6. Mack on 30/10/2020 at 12:17 am said:

    “Water vapour………but it both warms and cools this earth.”

    Nothing in the atmosphere warms this earth. All gases in the atmosphere do not add energy to the atmosphere, but disperse it. All gases in the atmosphere just dissipate heat .
    You’re also confused by cloud cover at night keeping the atmosphere warm ( but only warmer than the night or two before, when the night sky was clear… ie no nett warming)
    Clouds, in simple terms, act as a thermostatic governor of Earth temperature…. a fine tuning of the temperature…a moderating effect, dampening down of excessive global temperature swings. The cloud cover (blanket) at night may slow heat movement from the atmosphere near the surface to the atmosphere above the clouds, but that’s about it. Far more effective is the “blanket” of clouds during the day keeping the surface COOLER by shielding it from the sun.
    In total , the atmosphere , water vapour and condensed water vapour, just stabilise and finely tune Earth temperature… cloud’s presence by night slowing the rate of heat loss from the surface causing a “warming”.. and by day , shielding the surface causing the surface to actually BE cooler.
    The atmosphere raising the temperature of this planet by 33deg C, from a frozen Earth at -18 deg C to the real 15deg C, is science for imbeciles and the sooner this piece of science fantasy, derived from Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams showing only 340 watts/sq.m arriving at The Top of the Atmosphere, is removed from the school curriculums, the better…. How do we do that?

    • Juglans nigra on 21/11/2020 at 11:22 am said:

      Mack: “looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams showing only 340 watts/sq.m arriving at The Top of the Atmosphere,”
      Possibly from the distinction between “solar constant” and irradiance energy.
      Try the Wiki:

      Solar irradiance

      The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²). The amount reaching the Earth’s surface (as insolation) is further reduced by …….”

      Apart from all that; I am a bit confused about the processes of clouds interacting with sunlight (each of its wavelengths). I know that we used a water fan to suck the infra-red (IR) out of a house-fire to protect an adjacent building surface from overheating and igniting. I see the splitting of white light into a rainbow as it passes through a droplet, so the chaos of selective extraction of IR at the upper boundary layer of a cloud then re-vaporising the droplets which then re-condense as the vapour rises to its condensation altitude, releasing its heat (presumably as IR) probably Just comes to an equilibrium at a slightly greater altitude. Perhaps a similar balance is arrived at when IR from earth surface “warms” the lower volume of a cloud layer and just lifts the whole cloud to the elevation where equilibrium is restored; or just disperses the whole lot into vapour if there is too low a concentration to allow it to re-condense.

      Shorter wavelengths from the sun will behave differently to the IR and about there the brain fades to join the rest of the body in fatigue.
      Somehow enough red and blue get through to keep the chlorophyll happy and replenishing my daily oxygen requirement.
      For this I am constantly grateful.

      Sorry it took so long to notice this in the moderation folder. I note you’re one of only a few people with a gratifying familiarity with extended characters, and your description of phase changes in clouds was concise and entertaining, thanks. You black walnut, you! – RT.

  7. Graham on 30/10/2020 at 7:58 am said:

    For the nitpickers
    Water vapour as clouds holds heat from radiating to space from the earths surface and clouds reflect heat from the sun back into space .
    So water vapour has an effect on the earths temperature as it cools the earth and retains the suns warmth ,

  8. Mack on 30/10/2020 at 2:10 pm said:

    “……reflect heat from the sun….”

    For the nitpickers
    There’s no “heat” from the sun… there’s energy in the form of radiation from the sun.
    Get your basic physics right.

  9. Graham on 30/10/2020 at 5:16 pm said:

    For the nitpickers .
    So the sun does not warm the earth ?
    This scam was originally called global warming .
    Never heard it called global radiation.
    Go stand out side at night on a cloudless night .No heat from the sun .
    The sun radiates but the effect on the ground is warming when the sun shines and the heat soon rises on a cold clear winters night and disappears to space .
    The suns rays are reflected off clouds and snow and ice back into space so that radiation never gets to affect the worlds climate .

  10. Mack on 30/10/2020 at 7:28 pm said:

    Well, as far as I can fathom from your last two comments, which amount to an unhinged, disjointed, confusing. incomprehensible load of crap; I would at least discern some elements that suggest you might know it’s called the RADIATIVE Greenhouse effect…..I may be wrong…. ignorance never fails to amaze me.

  11. Mack on 30/10/2020 at 7:59 pm said:

    btw, for readers and RT. I was told by Graham…
    “Get your facts right before blowing your mouth off” here..

  12. Graham on 31/10/2020 at 2:36 pm said:

    It is a futile waste of time conversing with the nitpicker .
    According to Mack the sun does not warm the earth . Who is talking Crap?
    The surface of the sun is 5578 K and heat is radiated into space and it takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for the suns rays to reach the earth.
    Radiation is the transfer of heat energy through space by electromagnetic radiation.
    Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earths surface is radiated back into the atmosphere and back to space.

  13. Mack on 01/11/2020 at 1:23 am said:

    “Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere and back to space”

    Have you got any numbers to support that pile of tripe? The radiative energy from the Sun (strictly speaking Power) is in watts,… watts/sq.m. Have you got any watts/sq.m. to support your assertions, or are you simply blathering through a hole in ya head?

  14. Peter Pauling on 29/11/2020 at 1:40 pm said:

    R Treadgold

    Listen to the science not a scientist or two even.

    If you cannot understand the simple fact you can add molecules where the air is thin there is no way you will ever understand atmospheric physics.

    The atmosphere is not saturated with CO2. Simple fact. Your “authorities” are wrong. Wishing thy were not doesn’t fool nature.

  15. Mack on 29/11/2020 at 8:52 pm said:

    @Black walnut (Nov21, 2020 at 11:22am)

    !360 watts/sq.m. vis a vis 340 watts/sq.m. ; solar radiation arriving at the Top of the Atmosphere…..see this thread…
    Also, don’t get your science from wikipedia.

  16. Peter Pauling on 30/11/2020 at 11:57 am said:

    Want to know a little about fundamental atmospheric physics, and why the paper you hang your brains on is total nonsense?

    Start your study here:

    You won’t of course. Not one of you has a functioning brain.

    • Rick on 01/12/2020 at 12:47 am said:

      “Start your study here:
      You won’t of course. Not one of you has a functioning brain.”

      I started my study of radiative physics decades ago, Peter, as a lot of other people here may have done too. So stop thinking you can teach us how to suck eggs. We’re not all in the infants’ class in which you are still struggling.

      Upon reading the article at your link, I found it consisted only of half-baked dogma asserted as fact with no attempt made to prove the veracity of any of its claims. As I read it I had the same feeling that I have got from reading your comments here – the feeling of being talked down to by an arrogant, presumptuous know-it-all who is ironically unaware of the depths of his own ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating to everyone else. In terms of its value as scientific information I found the article to be mere empty noise and I would not recommend it to anyone as a place to start a serious study of radiative physics.

      Regarding your assertion that “Not one of you has a functioning brain”, how would you know? You don’t even know who we are, let alone know how well our brains might be functioning. You insult only yourself with self-ignorant remarks like that one.

  17. Mack on 30/11/2020 at 9:09 pm said:

    Most of us have already read the imaginary, error ridden , pseudo-science written by Spencer Weart and his deluded pack of “greenhouse effect” believing,… gullible,sycophantic fellow travellers…you’re obviously one of them. The main error being they say the CO2 molecules get colder the further up in the atmosphere you go.
    Here’s the line in that link you’ve given….
    “As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder”
    Sure it gets thinner, but not necessarily colder.
    Of course you , Spencer Weart, and the rest of the believing climate clowns then artificially terminate any “greenhouse” CO2 molecules at the tropopause…. further up, the “greenhouse gas” molecules of CO2 , they neglect to tell you, become red hot, at about 1500deg C, with an active Sun ; in the thermosphere.

    So you’ve linked us to Real Climate…. here’s a couple of links at Real Climate you might want to peruse, Peter boy,
    See if your brain has a function …
    The first follows with a few comments of mine you might want to take notice of.
    The second is the science explained to one of your ilk… BPL.. who reluctantly proffered “the math”.

  18. Peter Pauling on 10/12/2020 at 7:44 am said:


    I don’t care when you started studying radiative physics, although it’s clearly when you stopped learning too. So I can say you don’t have a functioning brain without knowing who you are.

    Oxford physics professor Ray Pierrehumbert’s explanation fits all the evidence, including the fact satellites show Earth radiating less energy in the wavelengths CO2 absorbs, so Earth is radiating less energy. Of course the explanation is based on an understanding of atmospheric physics which clearly is beyond you.

    In any case, thousands of thermometers show the mean global surface temperature is increasing, and the oceans are absorbing massive amounts of heat and warming. If it’s not our GHGs what is it?

    That’s the science. Nobody who matters cares any more whether you accept it or not – governments are long passed listening to cranks. Only the gullible and other cranks take any notice.

    But why don’t you go to and try your nonsense on Gavin or Ray. I need a laugh.

    • Rick on 11/12/2020 at 6:29 am said:

      @Peter Pauling

      You wrote:

      “So I can say you don’t have a functioning brain without knowing who you are.”

      Just because you can say something, that doesn’t mean it’s true. But I have found in life that this old saying is true: “Empty vessels make the most noise.” And you’re making plenty of it.

      “Oxford physics professor Ray Pierrehumbert’s explanation fits all the evidence,…”

      Pierrehumbert’s “explanation” of what, exactly? What are you babbling about?

      “…including the fact satellites show Earth radiating less energy in the wavelengths CO2 absorbs, so Earth is radiating less energy.”

      That’s false logic. If Earth is radiating less energy on CO2 absorption wavelengths, it does not mean that Earth is radiating less overall, i.e. across the whole energy spectrum.

      “Of course the explanation is based on an understanding of atmospheric physics which clearly is beyond you.”

      An understanding of atmospheric physics is clearly beyond everyone at the moment, which is why scientists – the real ones, I mean – are still investigating it and debating how it really works.

      “In any case, thousands of thermometers show the mean global surface temperature is increasing,…”

      Only in your naïve dreamworld. In reality individual thermometers do not show anything at all about the global mean surface temperature (GMST), no matter how many thousands of them there might be. They can only show the local temperatures at the individual points where they are located. This implies that the GMST can only be estimated from the temperature-readings of individual thermometers at their different locations on the surface. And the calculation required to produce such an estimate is never easy or straightforward and is invariably fraught with errors of one sort or another, large and small.

      But the main scientific flaw in them is that only someone with their own private data-gathering network, their own data processing centre and the correct algorithms for combining the individual temperature readings into a comprehensive estimate of the GMST (complete with error-bars) can possibly verify that anyone else’s estimate (such as one published by one of the politically-funded institutions like, say, NASA or the UK Met Office) is correct. And since no-one has such immense private resources at their disposal, no-one is able to verify any of the published estimates of the GMST in fact and therefore the published estimates have always been unverified and remain so to this day.

      Furthermore, anyone who places trust in any estimate which cannot be verified by themselves independently is doing so blindly as a leap in the dark. And doing that is not only unscientific but is also reckless and highly dangerous, in my opinion, when collective decisions about the destiny of global civilization and the whole planet are to be made on the basis of them, as they are in the case of the GMST. In short, their unverifiability makes the published estimates completely unreliable and untrustworthy and it would be foolhardy to base any practical decisions upon them. But this is precisely what the green climate alarmists are urging everyone to do.

      “That’s the science.”

      No it isn’t. That’s just your pseudoscientific dogma. Science is something quite different to that.

      “Nobody who matters cares any more whether you accept it or not….”

      I don’t care who doesn’t care whether I accept it or not. Anyone who wishes to ignore my knowledge of truth and reality is at perfect liberty to do so. However, I should probably add the health warning that the consequences for anyone who does choose to ignore my knowledge will be their lookout, not mine.

      “But why don’t you go to and try your nonsense on Gavin or Ray. I need a laugh.”

      No, what you need (besides a good antipsychotic) is some real knowledge of what real science is. I doubt that you’ll find any of that on Gavin Schmidt’s web-site because he’s not practicing real science himself – not real climate science, anyway – and you have to know what real science is before you can practice it and teach it to others. Which leaves delusional psychotics like you in a difficult position, I imagine. What can you purblind followers of the green climate alarmist Death Cult of the Apocalypse do but follow your equally blind leaders down into the bottomless pit of nescience and oblivion that is waiting to swallow you all up?

  19. Peter Pauling on 10/12/2020 at 11:53 am said:


  20. Ian Cooper on 11/12/2020 at 11:55 am said:

    Peter Pauling, try looking at the continued influence of ENSO, currently in La Nina phase. Add in the impact of the SAM and the MJO and what we have in Australia and here in NZ is a totally predictable, naturally occurring climate. Soaring spring temperatures in Oz (nothing unusual there) offset by nearly sea level snow in Southland. Oh how you people love to cherry pick!

  21. Noel Ashton on 25/08/2021 at 9:50 am said:

    I would like someone to explain why this article states:
    “In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming.”
    when the paper in question “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most
    Abundant Greenhouse Gases” by Happer & Wijngaarden in its conclusion states:
    Doubling the CO 2 concentration will cause…For the case of fixed absolute humidity, the surface warms by 1.4 K which agrees very well with other work as shown in Table 5. The surface warming increases significantly for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within
    0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups”
    Seems to me that the paper does concluded that additional CO2 will have an impact of the average global temperature, how much depending on whether atmospheric humidity remains at an absolute value or whether the relative humidity remains fixed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation