1) Introduction
By Erik Bye, physical chemist - Norway: On International Cooperation in Climate Science
This is an abbreviated version of the full text posted here.
The Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen coined a well-known phrase, at least in Norway:
“The strongest man in the world is the man standing alone.’
This statement is often used to describe the person who is fighting a matter alone.
Galileo Galilei fought against the official point of view that the Earth was the Center of the world and not the sun. This picture of the world, «the heliocentric system,» was from Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo actually ended in a struggle with the Pope.
Our present fight, to convince the world of the correct and scientific true understanding of Climate Change, is obviously not quite similar. We are not a single warrior, although we experience something similar. The massive majority do not perform and do not agitate in a rational and knowledgebased manner. However, in contrast to the man described by Ibsen, we have to extract optimum International Cooperation.
Hopefully, my story will illustrate the benefit of such international cooperation. One result is this Project. You can extract high-quality Science and Climate Knowledge.
1. Roy Clark
In July 2024, Roy Clark published «a breaking news» paper in the Norwegian scientific journal, Science of Climate Change (SCC):
«A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors»
Abstract (a modified version by Roy Clark)
When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded part of the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics to Syukuro Manabe, they failed to recognize that the climate models used to justify the award were invalid. A doubling of the CO2 concentration in the oversimplified 1967 climate model developed by Manabe and Wetherald created a spurious warming of 2.9 °C. The invalid 1967 model algorithms were incorporated into later global circulation models and provided the foundation for the radiative forcings and water vapor feedback still used in the climate models today. These pseudoscientific concepts have been used in all six of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Assessment Reports. A thermal engineering analysis of the energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature demonstrates that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1800 can't have caused any measurable change in surface temperature.
2. The European Commission
Not unexpectedly, no response from the Nobel Institute, IPCC, or any climate researcher was recognized. This is fully in agreement with my earlier description of all the documents that IPCC does not appreciate:
I thought it might be worthwhile to contact the leader of the European Commission, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, with this question:
«Syunoro Manabe constructed a Climate model in 1967 that was completely wrong. The model had too much effect on the CO2 concentration introduced in the model. The effect should have been negligible. For this model work, Manabe was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2021.
This model has been used by the IPCC in all their reports, AR1-AR6, and the results are completely wrong. Thus, the whole Climate Change process is a failure and has to be thoroughly reconsidered.
I hope you will do all you can, as fast as possible, to open up for a realistic and impartial discussion of this serious situation.»
My email was seriously answered by the Commission. However, they did not see any reason to change their policy, as they were quite confident in their quality assurance in their work.
I pointed to several serious reasons to reconsider the whole concept of their climate change, but they referred to IPCC (?) and their own research and quality projects.
3. The Swedish Academy of Sciences
Next, I sent a similar email to the Swedish Academy of Sciences, asking for a response to the failure in the Nobel Prize award. This email ended:
«My question is therefore: What actions will the Swedish Academy of Sciences take to inform the whole world about this Scandal? How will the Academy initiate a serious and unbiased scientific evaluation of the real effects of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
No response at all has been given to that email.
4. Science of Climate Change (SCC)
In 2015, the scientific journal Science of Climate Change (SCC) was established in Norway by Klimarealistene. The First Editor was Professor (emeritus) in theoretical Astrophysics, Jan-Erik Solheim. In contrast to most of the other International journals within this field, based on Peer review, the main aim is to also accept articles that are critical of the IPCC message. With the normal standards of scientific quality, this journal has been very attractive for critical articles and has been a valuable source for International communication and discussions among climate realists. And of course, it wished for well-accepted, serious scientific discussions with the alarmists. In addition to the article by Roy Clark, the presentation of several articles initiated important international contacts.
5. Demetris Koutsoyiannis
Already in October 2024, Demetris Koutsoyiannis presented his article about CO2-behaviour:
Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?
Here, it was confirmed that CO2 only contributes 4-5% of global warming. This implies that the human contribution is only 0,2% to global warming. Thus, Koutsoyiannis presents evidence that there is no major human contribution.
6. Ian McNaughton
In January 2025, I published an article in a Norwegian blog, based on the work of Ian McNaughton in SCC:
Temperature Measurements Versus Carbon Dioxide Concentrations & Population Growth
My contact with Ian has been quite active, a lot of topics have been discussed, both related to climate change, the climate scandal, Indoctrination in the School, and how to come to an end to this scandalous global situation. One result of this cooperation is the article: «Climate Alarmism» being posted as a Guest post at Demetris Koutsoyiannis:
7. CO2 Coalition
The next quite promising and challenging development was the invitation from William Happer and Jan Breslow to be a member of the CO2 Coalition. The Coalition has 190 members, all with highly qualified academic backgrounds. I felt honored, accepted the invitation, and looked forward to the promotional work of the CO2 gas for life assurance.
In addition to the work for promoting the importance of CO2 for life on earth, they organised a promising discussion platform. Here you could present links to interesting articles, present ideas on how to promote the main topic, refer to your articles, and raise questions for initiation of a discussion.
The Coalition has its own Home Page, used as the platform for the presentation of their scientific articles. In December 2024, they presented:
The Human Contribution to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Here, they claim that the emission of CO2 in modern times is mainly anthropogenic. This is underlined in the ABSTRACT. This can not be correct. There is 5-15% fossil CO2 in the atmosphere. The residence time is about 4 years, and thus, 1/4 of the total amount of CO2 is exchanged each year. There is no difference between anthropogenic and natural CO2,
and to resemble the mix, the whole mix is treated similarly.
The Coalition was not fond of my arguments, and they claimed that it promoted «Bad Science» when referring to the work of Harde, Soon, Berry, and Koutsoyiannis. This ended with the CO2 Coalition terminating my membership.
The first author, Ferdinand Engelbeen, obviously wanted to convince me that I was wrong. Parts of the discussion will be referred to in the next paragraph.
8. The discussion with Ferdinand Engelbeen
The first author of this article, Ferdinand Engelbeen, sent me an email, obviously in the hope of convincing me. This is the start of the mail:
Dear Erik Bye,
I don't think that the CO2 Coalition is wrong about natural CO2 emissions: these are hardly mentioned at all in our work because they are completely irrelevant…
Human emissions are one-way into the atmosphere for 100%, thus adding every single CO2 molecule directly into the atmosphere. Natural emissions are more than fully compensated by natural sinks in such a way that natural sinks are larger than natural sources, thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a net source, and can't be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere...
Here is a summary of the discussion:
- We are all confused. We are completely wrong, making the same error: Willie Soon, Hermann Harde, Berry, and I.
- The natural CO2 is irrelevant
- The residence time is not valid
- There was no interest in carrying out measurements similar to Segalstad (2012)
- No explanation was given for any dramatic change in the flux composition, from mostly natural to mostly anthropogenic CO2 in the flux.
- All their arguments are based on theoretical considerations, with no evidence to support the suggestions. This was not commented on.
- How do the sinks discriminate between anthro and natural CO2 was not explained.
- He would not have excluded me.
There were no good reasons to continue the discussion.
9. John Shanahan
During the dialog around the discussion with Ferdinand Engelbeen, there was interest in posting the article «Climate Alarmism» (Bye and McNaghton 2025) on the blog of John Shanahan as well:
Climate Alarmism
This, in combination with the discussion of the CO2 Coalition CO2-paper, was the start of a big cooperation project:
10. The Big Project: Overview of Climate Science and Related Topics
The invitation to be a co-author in this big project is quite a challenge. This might be looked upon as a Climopedia, a Sareptas Mug, filled with Climate Scientific literature, challenging both the climate realists and the alarmists. The project catalogue consists of approximately 190 pages presently.
This Climate Overview consists of four sections:
1. Introduction
2. The Alarmists (man-made carbon dioxide is destroying the planet)
3. The Realists (all CO2 is the same chemical and beneficial for life)
4. Conclusions
Sections 2 and 3 present the climate literature. Each of them is organized based on continent and the name of the authors.
The Conclusions give a summary of the most important questions.
The Line from SCC and the article of Roy Clark to The Project of John Shanahan represent a path for the construction of valid, stimulating International Cooperation. This is certainly one method to optimize the fight against Climate Fraud. Only the future will show how efficient such an amount of scientific knowledge can be the way to climate realism and reducing the misunderstanding of natural Climate Change.
Welcome aboard!
By Douglas Lightfoot, retired professional engineer - Canada: Orientation for this report
The title of this document, “2025 Overview of Climate Science – Main Report,” is the result of work by many people in addition to the primary authors. It is a description of how the Earth’s atmosphere works that goes well beyond what the title indicates.
It examines both sides of the issue regarding whether the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has a significant impact on the Earth’s temperature. Thus, it enables the reader to examine a substantial amount of information related to the issue.
The reader will soon discover that there is considerable information on both sides and that the primary authors conclude that, regardless of the arguments presented, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is too small to be measured. We can burn the carbon-based fossil fuels that store sunlight without worrying about the Earth overheating. This is because the Earth has a robust cooling system that prevents the Sun from overheating it.
The goal of this report is to be helpful to a diverse range of people worldwide. This includes students, adults, and elected government leaders. For example, they can learn what carbon dioxide is and how it is essential for providing us with all our food and oxygen.
The reader will be informed about the sources of carbon dioxide and whether humans contribute to them, whether they are natural, or a combination of both. The reader will learn about how the Earth’s atmosphere works as it receives energy from the Sun and radiates it to space, which helps to maintain a suitable range for current life forms.
If nothing else, please read the Conclusions. The primary authors wrote them after much study and reflection.
Notes for using this report
The four primary sections are:
1. Introduction
2. Man-made carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant
3. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential for all life on Earth. The Earth is greening as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase.
4. Conclusions
All individuals, organizations, and their reports are located in sections 2) and 3) above.
All entries are assigned to the continent where they are based. To find articles by the CO2 Coalition, in the Table of Contents (ToC), go to the main section titled “All carbon dioxide is essential for life”, North America. If you want articles by the Club of Rome in the ToC go to the main section “Manmade carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant”, Europe. There are also articles from Africa, Asia, and Australia-Oceania.
At every item in the Table of Contents (ToC), there are articles with hotlinks that take you to external reports for that person or organization.
Updates of this document are posted periodically. Refer to the date and time of posting for the document you are viewing in the footer.
At every item in the ToC, there are articles with hotlinks to take you to external reports for that person or organization.
Updates to this document are posted periodically. See the date and time of the posting for the document you are looking at in the footer.
About the authors
Erik Bye - Norway: physical chemist with a doctorate in crystallography, 1976 (UiO, Oslo). My scientific career has been in the field of Occupational exposure, now retired. He was a oneyear postdoc at ETH, Zürich (1977) with experience in the field of Chemometrics. He is a Climate Writer.
Terigi Ciccone - USA: President of InfoAlliance LLC, a firm of industry experts specializing in advancing high-tech startup companies. Teri has over 45 years' experience in gas turbine technologies for aviation, power generation, oil and gas industries, and ship propulsion. He has a BS and MS in Engineering from Northeastern University, and graduated from General Electric's 3-year Manufacturing Management and Technical Marketing Programs. Born in Italy, he immigrated to the USA in 1956. He is a lifelong avid consumer of science, especially climate change. He's an artist, Naturalist, and author of "A Hitchhiker's Journey Through Climate Change." He is active in the science of climate change, writing and posting articles in CFACT, Quora, and the website allaboutenergy dot net
Geert de Vries - South Africa: Has an MSc in physics and an MBL. During the early part of his career, he worked at Iscor and then CSIR. He worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany and later at the Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires (CEA) in France. Later, he worked for the French company Framateg on the building of Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, and subsequently at Eskom working on the PBMR project.
Viv Forbes - Australia: Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which was created to “defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere,” Forbes is a pasture manager, soil scientist, and geologist. He has been associated with the coal industry for over 40 years. He is associated with the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC). He says that the “Green Elite” has a “long-term agenda to destroy human industry and reduce human population. Thus, they are opposed to farming, mining, fishing, forestry, exploration, and cheap power.”
Demetris Koutsoyiannis
- Greece: Is Professor Emeritus of
Hydrology at the National Technical University of Athens. He was Dean of the School of Civil Engineering, Head of the Hydrology department, and of the Water Resources Development laboratory. In 2009, he was awarded the Henry Darcy Medal by the European Geosciences Union, and in 2014, the Dooge Medal, an international hydrology prize, bestowed by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, UNESCO, and the World Meteorological Organization. He was also a professor of Hydraulics at the post-graduate technical training school for officers of the Hellenic Army, and a visiting professor in London, at the Imperial College, and in Italy, at the Sapienza University of Rome and the University of Bologna.
Douglas Lightfoot - Canada: Retired Mechanical Engineer, graduated from the University of British Columbia in Applied Science in 1952, and received an MBA from Concordia University in 1976. He spent eighteen years with Domtar Inc. at the Research Centre in Senneville, Quebec, working on research, engineering, and economic studies of alternative energies as well as a wide variety of projects for the pulp and paper, chemicals, and construction materials businesses. Before joining Domtar, he spent five years designing, building, and starting up chemical plants at Dupont of Canada and 12 years of project engineering at Standard Chemical Limited.
He is a retired member of the Order of Engineers of Quebec and the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and a Life Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He continues to have an active interest in energy and energy-related subjects and was a member of the Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (GEC3) at McGill University.
Gerald Ratzer - Canada: Born in England and grew up in Scotland. He studied Honours Physics at Glasgow University and then went to Cambridge University for graduate studies in Computer Science. He was awarded an IBM Fellowship to McGill University in Montreal. In 1966, he was appointed to a tenure-track Assistant Professor position, one of the
youngest in the University's history. He taught there for 40 years and was promoted through the ranks to Professor Emeritus. He also consulted to industry in different scientific fields, but perhaps his greatest contribution was to Air Traffic Control simulation. He continues to use Physics to better understand Climate Change research over the last 20 years
John Shanahan - USA: Retired civil engineer, professional engineer with a doctorate in structural mechanics. Career in design and licensing of commercial nuclear power plants in the USA and Switzerland. Retirement is dedicated to global public education about energy, energy by-products, environment, climate, and their importance to people. Website: allaboutenergy.net.
2) Climate Science Overview - Africa, Asia, Australia & New Zealand and Latin America
3) Climate Science Overview - Europe
4) Climate Science Overview - North America
Go to Table of Contents
5) Conclusions
Erik Bye - Norway
Fake News or A New Paradigm?
Fake News
Something is now happening with the attitude of the world about climate change and the Green Deal. This change also includes the stance towards the Paris agreement and the importance of the regulations of the Climate measures.
Donald Trump has taken the US out of the Paris agreement, thus now it is altogether four massive oil producers outside the «good company», i.e. US, Libya, Iran, and Yemen. Only 15 of the FN member states have reported new measures, according to the established plan:
Only 15 Nations Bothered to Submit Paris Climate Pledges On Time
It is a dramatic change in the view of climate politics in Norway right now. More water power, with reduced safety for Nature. Due to an extremely uncertain world at the moment, we have to prioritize safety, defence, and particularly reduce the expensive climate politics. «Yesterday, Climate Change, caused by humans, was a threat to the Earth, the people, and the quality of living. «Now, suddenly, thinking of the Conflict in Gaza, in Ukraine, and the international risk both Russia and China are demonstrating, the handling of the threat by the CO2 emissions is politically reduced in priority. It is more or less only The-Green Wave which do not
accept this change.
At an International meeting in Oslo at the start of June, with representatives from UNESCO, it was stated that disinformation in the present situation was even Worse than climate change itself! This is probably a reaction of fright, that climate change is losing its political impact.
Thinking about the sayings of the alarmists, a reduced impact on the people is no favourite situation.
The alarmists’ experience:
- The Paradox of The Climate Change Narrative
- The Boomerang Effects of the Climate Myths
- The Sayings of Fake News increase with the increase of true Climate Science.
- Science never settles
FN and the member states dislike that:
- «Fake News» is dominating the discussions
- People do not move as a block
- People do not follow «orders»
- Interest in the climate change threat loses impact
- Trump's methods seem to have an impact
So, what might be the movement?
A New Paradigm
Above, I discussed the claims of disinformation and Fake News from the alarmists, to meet an increased skepticism among ordinary people. Fake News is a kind of defence shield against the opposition. Gradually, the skepticism increases, what are the characteristics, what are the possible sources, and what might be the results?
Is it possible to imagine an ending to this Fraud? A situation when IPCC has stopped the activity, and no more main climate reports in the AR-series are being produced?
Might it be accepted that:
- Does nature, through the sun, determine the climate?
- Is CO2 necessary for all life on Earth?
- Should oil and gas production be business as usual?
- The Green wave is brought to an end?
- Any «New» Green energy is developed by the industry itself, without subsidies?
How to achieve this situation? Is it a modern impossible adventure?
Here are some challenges:
- What can convince the IPCC?
- Who will announce the victory of the realists?
- What number will be the last main IPCC report?
- Who is going to write the obituary of IPCC?
Could it be that:
- IPCC might be convinced to stop by Science
- IPCC might be persuaded to stop due to the general situation, the opposition, and all the documented errors and failures
- IPCC might be forced to stop due to the weakened economy
- IPCC might be forced by authority
How to make the IPCC stop, due to scientific evidence and because it is not serving a useful purpose anymore?
The option to convince them by Science should never be forgotten.
Douglas Lightfoot - Canada
The Earth has a robust cooling system based on the water cycle that keeps the Earth’s temperature habitable for current life forms. It cannot overheat. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is less than 0.01 °C.
The details of how the water cycle works are based on photons of light from the Sun and how they are changed into heat, i.e., thermalized. The heat is eventually converted back into photons and sent into space as infrared radiation (IR). There is enough IR radiation emitted into space to balance the input from the Sun and geothermal sources in the oceans. Several people have explained this system.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, combined with sunlight, works within the cells of plant leaves to produce the food and oxygen that we need. Plants grow better at higher levels of CO2, as in greenhouses where the level is controlled at 1,200 to 1,300 parts per million (ppm), compared to the current level of about 420 ppm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), overlooks this fact and advocates for reducing the level of CO2 to well below 420 ppm.
The IPCC promotion has been successful in places such as Canada, the UK, and Europe. Most of the rest of the world, including Africa, Asia, and South America, has not been affected by the promotion. They want the energy in fossil fuels and their by-products, as well as the energy in nuclear power. Catastrophic man-made global warming is not on the minds of most people in these regions of the world.
Australia, Europe, and Canada must revise their policies regarding climate change, fossil fuels, and nuclear power immediately, or risk a significant decline in their standard of living and global status compared to the rest of the world. President Donald Trump recently withdrew the United States from the Paris Accord, a treaty related to CO2 levels signed by many countries.
The concept that human activities can control the Earth’s climate is being increasingly shown to be incorrect. It will collapse when sufficient people
feel the adverse effects.
Gerald Ratzer - Canada
Spoiler Alert! This conclusion is biased, based on the author’s Physics background and the Scientific Method.
Many advanced university-level Physics courses are shrouded in a forest of mathematical equations and symbology that few can understand. In this set of documents, the target audience is those who complete high school which includes an introduction to science. It is hoped that all readers, including politicians, will understand just two important items – the Scientific Method and Photosynthesis.
1. Scientific Method. This concept, which can be explained in one simple sentence, is the foundation of all Science. Any idea about the world and space around can be described as a model or hypothesis and tested by collecting real, empirical data. If the collected data does not confirm the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong! This is well explained by Richard Feynman in his lecture – in one minute.
2. Photosynthesis is the foundation of all life on Earth. Whether on land, in the oceans or the air - all living objects rely on this vital process. The process involves the creation of glucose (sugar/food) from the combination of water, carbon dioxide and sunshine. This applies to the start of the food chain in the form of bacteria, algae leading to grass, crops, trees and animals on land; and phytoplankton in the sea where the food chain leads to krill, fish and large whales.
Photosynthesis also produces oxygen needed for life on Earth.
This conclusion summary is based on the supremacy of the Scientific Method. The IPCC has written over 30,000 pages of reports and most of the science sections in the main reports are a valid contribution to knowledge. However, there are short, high-level documents called Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which are not written by scientists but by government bureaucrats with a political agenda.
The SPMs are reviewed on a line-by-line basis to reflect the propaganda of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming, by demonizing carbon dioxide –CO2. The authors of the science sections are then instructed by the IPCC to change their science reports to reflect the SPMs. This is a direct contradiction to the Scientific Method and discredits the work of the IPCC scientists over the last 36 years.
What the IPCC propaganda refuses to do is to list all the benefits of CO2, such as its contribution to the greening of planet Earth, as described in many technical reports. Currently, satellite technology can distinguish between over 40 different species of plants growing on the surface, from tundra mosses to the type of trees in a forest, to different crops. Over the last 40 years, space data collection has revealed an increase of over 30% in the Leaf Area Index (LAI) on a global basis. Part of the record crops is due to better seeds, irrigation, and agricultural techniques, but a large portion is directly due to the increase in CO2 from 300 to 420 ppm, starting in 1946. On a global basis, this is huge, with one report saying it is equivalent to twice the size of the USA area, in new green plants.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, propaganda uses the increase in CO2 as the source of a projected increase of global temperature by several degrees by 2050. Our research, which collected and analyzed real data from around the world, confirmed that the expected warming is of the order of 0.01°C and too small to measure.
Another example of where the AGW propaganda has failed is in the
residence time of CO2 in the air. The IPCC has its own Bern model, which claims that the average residency time of CO2 is over 100 years. Research and modelling by Ed Berry and many others say the residency time is about 5 years. The oceans are a huge source and sink of CO2, and there is a simple example that people will understand. A glass of cold soda, beer or champagne will slowly release its CO2 bubbles as it warms up to room temperature. The same is true of the oceans. In the Tropics, the warm water releases CO2, while the cooler temperate oceans absorb CO2. Earth has been warming up since the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and there has been a net outgassing of CO2 from the oceans over the last 300 years. There is a complex flow between the oceans and the atmosphere, but the idea of blaming all the increase in CO2 on humans (maybe close to 5%) is completely ridiculous and not based on the Scientific Method or sufficient empirical data.
Since the theme of this documentation project is CO2, the above sections make it clear that CO2 has many benefits and trying to reduce the current level is a fool’s errand. To make this point clear, any project that tries to capture and sequester CO2 (CCS) in the Earth’s mantle is very expensive and counterproductive to the greening of the Earth. CCS projects should be defunded, and all subsidies should be withdrawn.
Most likely, the largest error in the IPCC reports is their reliance on climate models. A climate model is a hypothesis on how the very complex climate, ocean, and Sun systems interact. The IPCC has based most of their conclusions on these computer-based models and not on collecting actual data. Our group thinks the UAH satellite data record of global temperatures is the best available. While it may not be a perfect reflection of the complexity of our weather and climate, it is one of the best overall temperature records available. The discrepancy between the IPCC models now goes back over 45 years, and back-testing is possible. Roy Spencer and John Christie have done an excellent job of documenting the difference between the models (which each is a hypothesis) and measured data, and estimated that the temperature rise rate of the models is some 45% warmer than observed data. With one exception, the models are wrong by the
definition of the Scientific Method.
Another conclusion from the numerous technical papers on the greenhouse effect (GHE) shows that “the missing 33°C” between the average observed surface temperature of 288 K and the theoretical StefanBoltzmann calculated radiation model of 255 K is in error. This is a more complex issue, but again the Scientific Method, as used by Nikolov, Zeller and Weber, using real data from six “rocky” planetary objects in our solar system accounts for about 90°C from both the local Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and the surface pressure due to auto-compression by gravity. With this recent work, which is well documented, there is no need for a 33°C radiation effect attributed by CO2 in the air (which is complete nonsense).
All these different conclusions point out that CO2 is vital to life as we know it. Carbon Dioxide and its benefits should be respected.
John
Shanahan
- USA
The sixty-year campaign of the United Nations to hoodwink the world, claiming that man-made carbon dioxide is a serious pollutant and fossil fuels must be left in the ground, is potentially the worst offense against humanity ever. The United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and governments in Australia, North America, and Europe have tried to hide knowledge about weather and climate that simple people of all ages have known for thousands of years. The UN did this to stop the use of fossil fuels. Without the 6,000 by-products of oil everything in the modern world disappears, and life goes back to the Stone Ages, Dark Ages or 1700s.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC, World Economic Forum, WEF, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
PIK, Pope Francis, the European Union, Germany, United Kingdom, United States have completely ignored WEATHER, MANY ROLES OF THE OCEANS, MANY DETAILS OF CLIMATE.
ENERGY is not the only thing that shapes the climate. WORK is important and has been completely ignored. WORK IS HOW THINGS GET DONE! If they ignore WORK, they miss a lot. It is WORK (conversion of energy from one form to another) that moves warm oceans from the equator to the poles, delivers drinking water, and water for agriculture and wildlife. If the sun doesn’t control WORK in the atmosphere and oceans, then WORK doesn’t have to happen. We would need hundreds of thousands of large power plants to move the oceans and make fresh water. Every time work is done, the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says that the energy available afterwards can’t do as much work the next time. But thermodynamics is passé for many scientists who focus on electromagnetic energy.
All who claim that man-made CO2 is a pollutant and some who claim that it is the molecule of life make simple mathematical models that they use to study Earth’s climate. They calculate a static global average for Earth’s temperature and global averages of sunlight and infrared radiation to predict changes in the average temperature to a fraction of a degree. They don’t account for the presence of many influences of the vast, deep oceans. They say that weather, actual climate are internal processes. They and the oceans don’t play a role in the electromagnetic radiation considerations with “greenhouse” gases.
It doesn’t matter that we live on the Blue Marble!! John Shanahan thinks that it is necessary to fully account for the role of the oceans when explaining climate change. If the oceans are not fully accounted for, then they can do anything and have no different effect on the weather and climate. Isn’t that unrealistic?
Some who focus on electromagnetic radiation and “greenhouse
gases" disparage others who want to also use thermodynamics and classical physics. This creates stress between the USA on one side and other countries. What is that among all the problems facing the world?
How can “democracies” tolerate the UN IPCC, World Economic Forum, Greenpeace, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK running the free world??
Classical Science that was developed over two thousands years up to the development of quantum physics in the Twentieth Century is ALWAYS VALID. It just doesn’t tell the complete story. We must include Classical Physics and Quantum Physics to explain WEATHER and CLIMATE thoroughly and correctly.
Administrative and advocacy organizations for nuclear power (not nuclear power professionals) have “claimed” that nuclear power can help solve the man-made global warming crisis. Never have so many well-educated people said something so irresponsibly false. Nuclear power and fossil fuels have no control over global weather and climate. Only Mother Nature can do that.
Concluding Photos
What do you think the future of the world will be?
Will it be like Al Gore, John Holdren, and John Kerry predict, or like most
people can see with their open eyes, minds, and hearts?
The beginning of thousands of years of turbine blades going to landfills.
People arriving on private jets for the World Economic Forum on Global Warming
Cavemen caused the first man-made global warming crisis
This is what Mother Nature gives us and what gifted people build
in Germany
- The Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, Italy
No matter what faith or no faith at all one might have, the Duomo in Florence is a magnificent human accomplishment. Much better than all the wars, crimes, government trickery, and environmental destruction in history. John Shanahan
Meadow
Duomo
Swiss meadow with water trough for dairy cows
The Matterhorn, Switzerland
Are man-made global warming alarmists right? We caused a climate crisis!
Go to Table of Contents
