By email
International Cooperation - full article
Erik Bye
June 3, 2025
The Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen made a well known phrases, at least in Norway:
The strongest man in the world is the man mostly standing alone.
This statement is often used to describe the person who is fighting for 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 Galilei actually ended in a struggle with the Pope.
Our present fight, to convince the world of the correct and the 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 knowledge based manner. However, In contrast to man described by Ibsen, we have to extract optimum International Cooperation.
Hopefully my story will illustrate the benefit of such a co-work, one result being this Project, from which 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»
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024-Nobe l-Prize-Errors.pdf
I decided to translate a part of the article and publish it in a Norwegian net journal. However, the Abstract was somewhat difficult to understand for others than the climate specialist and then the editor, professor (em)
JanErik Solheim, Theoretical Astrophysics suggested a more easy-to-read Abstract. Generously presented by Clark. Here is the Abstract:
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 it is impossible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1800 to have caused any measurable change in surface temperature. And then the Norwegian article was published.
One way to increase the dissemination was to have the article presented by No Tricks Zone, done here:
https://notrickszone.com/2024/07/12/seminal-1967-paper-introducing-co 2-radiative-forcing-is-based-on-assumptive-imaginary-world-modeling/
2. The European Commission
Not unexpectedly, no response from The Nobel Institute, IPCC or from any climate researcher was recognized. This is fully in agreement with my earlier description of all the documents that IPCC do not appreciate:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4353:norway-the-clima te-documentation-the-ipcc-will-not-like&catid=216&highlight=WyJhbWVy aWthIiwia2VyaWsiLCJlcmlrIiwiYW1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2Fua XNjaGVuIiwiamFuLWVyaWsiLCJieWUiLCJlcmlrIGJ5ZSJd
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 gave too much effect to 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 un-partial discussion of this serious situation.»
My email was seriously answered by The Commission. However, they did not see any reasons to change their policy, as they were quite confident with 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 in order 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 mail.
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 being critical to the IPCC message. With the normal standards to 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 the important international contacts.
5. Demetris Koutsoyiannis
Already in October 2024, Demetris Koutsoyiannis presented his article about the CO2-behaviour:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Koutsoyiann is-DogTail-Nov-2024.pdf
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 presentes evidence for a major human contribution.
I found the paper so important that I translated and published the result in the same Norwegian net journal.
This work was the first step for me to be a Guest poster on the blog of Demetris, see the paragraph: Climate Alarmism below.
6. Ian McNaughton
In January 2025 I published an article in a Norwegian blog, based on the work of Ian McNaughton in SCC:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/McNaughton-20 24-Temperature-CO2-Population.pdf
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 of this scandalous global situation. One result of this cooperation is the the article: «Climate Alarmism» being posted as a Guest post at Demetris Koutsoyiannis:
https://climath.substack.com/p/climate-alarmism
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 promotive 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 own articles and raise questions for initiation of a discussion.
The Coalition has their own HomePage, used as the platform for the presentation of their scientific articles. In December 2024 they presented:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contributi on-to-Atmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
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 excluding me as a member.
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 to convince 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 these are completely irrelevant…
Human emissions are one-way into the atmosphere for 100%, thus add 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, doing the same error: Willie Soon, Hermann Harde, Berry, and me.
- The natural CO2 is irrelevant
- The residence time is not valid
- There was no interest to carry 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 have not 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 to post the article: «Climate Alarmism», (Bye and McNaghton 2025) on the blog of John Shanahan as well:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4346:norway-australiaclimate-alarmism&catid=216&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2VyaWsiLC JlcmlrIiwiYW1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwiamFuLW VyaWsiLCJieWUiLCJlcmlrIGJ5ZSJd
This, in combination with the discussion of the CO2 Coalion CO2-paper, was the start of the big cooperation project:
10. The Big Project: 2025 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 170 pages presently.
This climate Overview consists of four sections:
1. Introduction
2. The alarmists
3. The Realists
4. Conclusion
Section 2 and 3 presents the climate literature. Each of them is organized on the basis of the separate countries and name of the authors.
The Conclusion gives a summary of the most important questions just now, June 2025.
The Line from SCC and the article of Roy Clark to The Project of John Shanahan represents a path for the construction of a valid, stimulating International Cooperation. This is certainly one method to optimize the fight towards climate Fraud. Only the future will show how efficient such an amount of scientific knowledge can be the way to climate realism and one way to reduce the misunderstanding of natural Climate Change.
Welcome on board!