Critique of the 6th Oregon Climate assessment

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist

As in all the other five climate assessments from OCCRI, this one is no different and doubles down on collective stupidity as the authors are not the least bit inquisitive as to the validation of any of their claims or offering any proof that the legislative actions on climate taken up by Oregon’s failed legislative leadership will ever make any difference to atmospheric CO2 levels or the climate and that are no doubt based upon this rubbish.

You may read this OCCRI assessment here: OCA6_full.pdf | Powered by Box

I do note that the majority of all the authors in this assessment have no degrees in atmospheric science or related earth science disciplines but rather are nothing more than public policy wonks along with ecology doctorates that are ignorant enough about atmospheric science to blindly trust the few that also authored some of the assessment. The two that come to mind that absolutely should know better are Paul Loikith from Portland State University and Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University. Loikith is an atmospheric science doctorate and Schmittner a physics doctorate.

Climate Models are artifacts of true physical science making their solutions worthless for public policy.

Important to understand right off the top, that every single scenario and recommended action is based upon one thing, and that is the continued use of provably failed “climate” model projections that have large and unavoidable error accumulation and no scientific way of ever resolving this. The problems start with the realization that “climate” models are nothing more than weather forecast models that are configured to do large time integrations. The only way that can happen is to further sacrifice “climate” model resolution from short term resolution by enlarging the grid sizes that calculations are made from to maintain computational stability. We know the reason why weather forecast models fail beyond but a few days and mathematical constraints like these are a big reason. There is simply no grid size small enough to ever capture all the physical processes and move them forward in time without losing track of the energy flows and transformations. The necessary finite grids can never truly satisfy the limits of all the partial differential equations that govern the behavior of the atmosphere. This means that enlarging the grids which is a necessary task of attempting a large time integration will most certainly cause the model to fail to predict weather patterns and systems accurately and much more so than weather forecast models themselves. The modelers try and weasel their way around this by claiming they don’t have to get the weather right in space and time coordinates because the earth is spherical and errors in one place will be made up for in others and somehow, just magically, it will all work out when the variable sought to solve for is global, not regional. such as global temperature. To amplify the errors, there is no absolute solution to the hydrological thermodynamics that involve the formation and destruction of clouds and precipitation systems around the earth as these equations have to be parameterized with simplified assumptions to incorporate them into a “climate” model. This seriously affects the ability to accurately project the transfer of the solar radiation that is being absorbed by the Earth through the atmosphere to the calculations that involve the emission of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface that reaches outer space. 

In this climate assessment, the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute uses the “climate” model generated IPCC scenario RCP8.5,

meaning the representative concentration pathway (RCP) of 8.5 they calculate gives a “business as usual” human emissions scenario of CO2 which means that human emissions of CO2 continue as they are today so that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reach 936 ppmv and generate a radiative forcing of 8.5 Wm-2 on the Earth’s surface. From this, they derive from failed “climate” models that global temperatures will warm 5-6 degC. In the next section I will show that this projected atmospheric CO2 concentration in the year 2100 is based upon another faulty assumption. But for the sake of this section, the predicted warming by these failed “climate” models make revealing assumptions that are impossible to predict the climate from. A good estimate of additional radiative forcing from atmospheric CO2 as concentration increases comes from the close logarithmic relationship of this forcing. This is because the rate of radiative absorption from CO2 decreases nearly logarithmically due to the primary band near 15 microns of wavelength becoming saturated at all CO2 values of 285 ppmv or greater. except at the wings of the band that are away from the powerful Q branch near the center. This relationship can then be described as 5.35 Wm-2 Ln ( C/Ci ), or the saturated forcing of 5.35 Wm-2 multiplied by the natural logarithm of the ratio of the projected CO2 concentration over the preindustrial concentration of 285 ppmv. Plugging in the predicted CO2 value in the year 2100, we get 5.35 Wm-2 x 1.189 = 6.36 Wm-2. This is the stand-alone radiative forcing created by increasing atmospheric CO2 from 285 to 936 ppmv at the mean global temperature of 288K. But curiously, this forcing does not match the warming predicted by this scenario of 5-6 degC because the rate of change of forcing at the mean Earth global temperature is dF/dT = 5.42 Wm-2K-1 or 6.02 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin with a ground emissivity of 0.9, realistic with the Earth’s surface. This produces a temperature change of +1.06 degC, NOT +5 to +6 degC as claimed in this “climate” model scenario. 

The reason for this disparity is caused by the gross oversimplification of the parameters incorporated in the model such as holding global relative humidity constant with warming, which leads to spurious increases of the global water vapor concentrations.

And since water vapor is the most powerful and superior greenhouse gas in the troposphere, spurious warming trends are generated in addition to the modeling being unable to model the hydrological cycle which would contain the proper cloud to vapor fractions. Such error also decreases Earth albedo and allows additional spurious warming from increased solar insolation to the Earth’s surface. This explains a significant reason why these projections are highly unrealistic and impossible in addition to error propagation from any initialization time. 

Just as important, is the realization that from founding principles in atmospheric science that with any water vapor feedbacks to CO2 being anticipated as negative, this stand-alone calculation of a 1.06 degC warming is also brought into question as such a negative feedback merely increases the cloud fraction through slightly enhancing the hydrological cycle from CO2’s radiative effects. This means in all probability, increasing atmospheric CO2 has no controlling effect on Earth temperature in the presence of its hydrological cycle, contrary to modeling. 

From this, comes the propaganda of melting glaciers, disappearing snow cover, arctic sea ice, sea level rise and any severe weather.

I will address this in the next section. Without knowing to being nearly exact about these radiation problems from clouds that affect all wavelengths of energy excepting the shortest wavelength’s that get into X-rays and beyond, it is impossible to determine the true effects of any atmospheric constituent such as water vapor and cloud fluxes with their fractional ratios along with atmospheric CO2 through any appreciable length of time, or in other words, with the use of a “climate” model. These calculations can only be made empirically or with a very short time integration which makes this unsuitable for any desired result from a failed “climate” model. The modelers incorrectly assume that because of a spherical earth that the errors self-correct. The errors do not self-correct from any initialization, instead they accumulate which only makes a prediction less reliable the longer the attempt to predict the change in a variable through time such as temperature. Dr. Patrick Frank from Stanford University demonstrates this point well in a paper he wrote about propagation error in “climate” models linked below: 

Frontiers | Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections (

“Climate” models are overrated heaps of junk that cannot perform the tasks the modelers claim.

They are what I call Oz machines, akin to the hologram used on the movie “The Wizard of Oz” that “the Great and Powerful Oz” used against the citizens of “Munchkin Land” to scare them and make them think that the Wizard was a supernatural person with intelligence beyond human.   

OCCRI Incorrectly assumes that human emissions of CO2 caused all atmospheric CO2 increases.

In this climate assessment, the IPCC as does OCCRI assumes that all increases in atmospheric CO2 are solely the result of human activity but give no supporting evidence for conclusion that supports this notion other than ice core records which show during pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 remained nearly constant during interglacial periods. The problem with this is that it contradicts geological records which estimate much higher concentrations of CO2 from the Precambrian to the Cenozoic period of today’s Holocene, where atmospheric CO2 was as high as 2240 ppmv and from where global temperatures fluctuated opposite to the incorrect assumption that CO2 is controlling on Earth temperature. This many thousands and millions of years ago, it would be clear that nature, not humans, control the direction and total atmospheric CO2 concentration. It makes absolutely no sense that atmospheric CO2 would remain constant outside of human emissions of CO2 when we know that Earth biological activity is sensitive to temperature and that warming temperatures increase emissions of CO2 from the tropical oceans and land surfaces and decreases absorption of CO2 at higher latitude oceans with the opposite direction of both in a cooling trend. It is important to realize from this that today’s natural and annual carbon cycle exchange of CO2 in the biosphere is 21x (twenty one times) that of annual human CO2 emissions, or approximately 736 Gt of CO2 (94.36 ppmv of CO2 per year) and of which this exchange is sensitive to temperature and whose total changes as a result. It is clear from this with a relationship of temperature sensitivity that this annual cycle of absorption and emission remains constant. Changes within in it would most certainly affect atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The IPCC has done a poor job in formulating what these increases in atmospheric CO2 mean with respect to human emissions as their attempts to quantify the increases are based upon unphysical crude estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Their calculations assume without proof that humans are solely responsible for atmospheric CO2 increases since the start of the industrial revolution, but as I have already explained, those assumptions are clearly faulty. Further, this crude model compartmentalizes all the carbon reservoirs and if one stopped all emissions of CO2 and only allowed for absorption, one of the compartments leaves its share of atmospheric CO2 to an infinitely large time, which is unphysical and impossible. This crude and inaccurate model was developed by Joos and Siegenthaler (1992) and named the Bern model. 

This brings the need of a physical model to answer the question of how atmospheric CO2 truly behaves in the Earth atmospheric system and to determine what the total proportions of atmospheric CO2 actually are within the system and how they are added and removed instantaneously through time. A physicist by the name of Dr. Edwin Berry has done extensive work on this problem and developed a first of its kind carbon model that then uses the IPCC’s own variables of residence time for a CO2 molecule from the atmosphere through all the surface carbon reservoirs with their residence time constants and comes up with a totally different conclusion of what the human and natural components of atmospheric CO2 are and how long they remain in the atmosphere when emitted by nature and humans. His work is published here:

The Impact Of Human CO2 On Atmospheric CO2 – Published Paper (

According to this work, human emissions of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution are only responsible for roughly 25% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

That amounts to 33 ppmv of the 130 ppmv increase since that time. If we extrapolate this percentage to the IPCC RCP8.5 scenario in this OCCRI assessment, the human component of the atmospheric total at year 2100 would be only 163 ppmv CO2 out of that 936 ppmv total, or 17.41% of this total, and again, only 25% of the furthered increase from today’s value. The result of this work is stunning because it demonstrates that every proclaimed political solution of what policy wonks and politicians tell us we must do to reduce CO2 emissions and get CO2 in the atmosphere to fall back to the arbitrary and unscientific value claimed of 350 ppmv will be physically impossible to ever achieve because if we stopped all human emissions today, atmospheric CO2 would only decline back to its new balance level of 393 ppmv by the year 2100, or approximately 23 ppmv lower than today. Needless to say, the attempt to do this would be committing a mass genocide on the entire human race for engaging in this insanity, and further meaning that any political actions implemented by any regional or global political bodies will fail miserably in a stated goal of ever reaching 350 ppmv, the strictly phony and arbitrary value stated by James Hansen. This value will be impossible to ever reverse the atmospheric total back to without the cooperation of nature implementing a cooling trend on the Earth’s climate, which is certainly probable, but not predictable beyond ocean cycles and the larger time intervals of the planetary Milankovitch cycles of ten thousand years with our current understanding of the global climate system.

Important to understand with Berry’s work is the reality that the growth trajectory of atmospheric CO2 is dependent on the continued upward trajectory of temperatures as well. If the climate begins to cool as ocean cycles can cause or other incompletely understood processes add to this such as solar magnetic influences, the balance levels of atmospheric CO2 will change and lower along with the cooling and cause the atmospheric CO2 levels to fall as well, irrespective of human emissions. This is because natural emissions of CO2 will decrease (proportional to balance level in the Berry Model) and absorption will increase over the northern oceans with the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (proportional to level in the Berry model and therefore outflow from the atmosphere) will be more effective in causing absorption into the northern oceans.

Skrable, Chabot, and French used carbon isotope data to conclude that human CO2 has a small effect on atmospheric CO2 similar to that calculated by Berry using IPCC data.

 Skrable, Chabot, And French Limit Human CO2 Effect To 48 Ppm (

And the sensitivity of Earth carbon emissions to temperature are discussed in this paper authored by physicist Herman Hardy from Germany:

What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations :: Science Publishing Group

All of this work alone proves that any attempts to legislate and regulate humans to reduce their CO2 emissions are stupid and dangerous ideas that will accomplish NOTHING with respect to changing any aspect of the climate, or any measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but will be ruinous to the global economy through exorbitant energy prices and force many into poverty through the destruction of many businesses who will no longer have the tools at hand to be competitive in the global markets or an electric grid that will serve the public without severe power rationing. I note that the Chinese Communist Party has no intention of complying with any of these stupid ideas from the Paris Accords to reduce emissions, and is, in fact, ramping up emissions of CO2 significantly to improve their standard of living and remain competitive in global economics. In addition to this, the following graph prepared by Tony Heller from illustrates well that for the last 30 years, global governments have reached several “climate agreements” that have accomplished no stated objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration through the use of non-scientific and phony “emission reduction” schemes that involve advancing the rollout of “green energy” programs that supposedly reduce human emission of CO2 into the atmosphere with wind and solar energy along with developing electric cars. Then by government regulation, forcing the discontinued use of natural gas and internal combustion engine vehicles. In truth, the impacts of these ridiculous programs have had no measurable impact on atmospheric CO2 nor will they ever to a measurable degree in the future. The only thing these wasteful and expensive innovations will ever do is continue to cause the price of energy consumption in the future to rise to unaffordable levels by many and at the same time, line the pocketbooks of those promoting these worthless schemes that want to sell the products with government subsidies and empower an already grossly obese government to amass more power and force the rationing of energy on all of us by helping create an inferior electric grid that will not be able to produce future power demands for business and living. The present Paris Accords are made from preposterous junk science!

In terms of global temperatures, we do know that the Earth’s ocean cycles run periods of approximately 25-30 years where the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) moves back and forth between a warm and cold phase and global temperatures respond to these swings, cooling in cold phase and warming during warm.

The cycle has remained stubbornly in warm phase that has run from 1977 to 2007. It briefly reversed to cold phase in 2007-2011 but then turned back to a vigorous warm phase excursion that ran from 2011-2018 where it only after reversed back to cold. There were two nearly back-to-back super El Ninio’s that ran from 2015-2018 and caused a surge of warming in the global temperature record that was NOT caused by atmospheric CO2. If the climate remains in cold phase like it usually does from this point for another 25 years, I don’t see how a global cooling trend isn’t inevitable. Since 1979 until now, the global climate has warmed approximately .5 degC from the warm phase ocean cycle.

 In addition, I am harshly criticizing the record keeping of NOAA and NASA-GISS who have made unjustifiable “corrections” to the surface temperature records in their possession that provide the pre-satellite era of temperatures that go back over 100 years. The satellite record only goes back as far as 1979, and shows correctly, there has been warming from the start of this record until now because of the great Pacific climate shift of 1977 that began the ocean cycle of warm phase PDO. As stated above, this record only recently in 2018 shifted back to strong cold phase with enough persistence to likely indicate the oceans are cycling back to another lasting cold phase period that may run for 25 years like it was doing prior to 1977. But prior to the satellite era, NOAA and NASA-GISS have made several unjustifiable “corrections” to the US surface temperature records, cooling the earlier periods before 1950 and warming the latter periods that take us up to the present. The purpose of their actions was to erase important warming and cooling cycles in the record tied to the described ocean cycles and to make it appear that from the start of the industrial revolution, temperatures began to warm in sync with rising atmospheric CO2 levels, thus providing a false correlation with temperature and atmospheric CO2. This deplorable and dishonest behavior is described in detail by Dr.’s Joseph D’Aleo, James Wallace III and Craig Idso here:

ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf (

These “adjustments” are not limited to just US records. In Europe, the Hadley Centre made similar adjustments which have made the global temperature records unreliable and which are grossly exaggerating warming temperatures and creating a false correlation of temperature and atmospheric CO2 and the Bureau of Meteorology in the Australian government has done the same thing.

 The spreading of climate hysteria continues to falsely blame any severe weather on “climate change”.

This is one of the most blatant falsehoods asserted by climate activists and factions of academia when global temperatures had failed to climb for several years back in 2016 and that period became known as “the pause” that proved ‘climate’ models were failing to predict changes in global temperatures accurately. So the narrative changed to continue the hysteria by blaming any severe weather not on “global warming” but rather, “climate change”.  But when a relevant application of atmospheric science is made to check on this claim, it is blatantly false. If the CO2 warming claims were correct, severe weather would lessen, not worsen as the mean position of the hemispheric jet streams would be forced to migrate northward and southward respectably in each hemisphere. This scenario would cause drought, not increased precipitation globally and the drought would also become global, not regional, as cyclic droughts are that are tied to ocean cycles that we recently observed in California. I applied atmospheric science to this problem, and the results of my work can be found here:

 A Warming Arctic Would Not Cause Increased Severe Weather Or Temperature Extremes (

Similarly, another application of atmospheric science regarding heat waves demonstrates that high temperature extremes are also a consequence of high amplitude Rossby waves that can only be generated by an adequate supply of COLD air at high latitude that generates the appropriate cyclogeneses upstream of where a strong high pressure ridge will be generated with a strong source of warming and subsiding air, such as what was observed during the record June heatwave of 2021 that combine with solar dynamics. This OCCRI report mentions this heatwave but incorrectly asserts that the record high pressure height observed at 500 millibars of pressure over British Columbia was the result of warmer global temperatures. This is also completely wrong as the strength of this high pressure was directly related to a source of high latitude cold air that generated deep cyclogenesis over western Alaska and the Aleutian Island chain that then subsequently threw a ridge of high pressure out in front of it and downstream which is a perfectly normal process and occurs frequently around both hemispheres. The deepening of any low pressure system involves the upward and downward transport of atmospheric mass from the developing low pressure that becomes the basis of its nemesis, a high pressure system. My write-up of this event can be found here:

Solar Heat – Not CO2 – Caused The June 2021 Heatwave (

In spite of these truths established with atmospheric science, this hijacking of science continues to push this false narrative that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for all the recent increases in severe weather across the USA, this time by a spokesperson for NOAA by the name of Stephanie Herring, who is a doctorate in biochemistry, but has no training in atmospheric or related science, though works with other individuals similar to her background and who boasts of supervising a taxpayer funded $10 million per year budget at the Geophysical Science Branch in Boulder, Colorado which employs 50 people. While this may be an accomplishment under different circumstances, it is not when grouped into the climate arena, because we see that this organization, like the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, and many others connected to academia are heavily funded with federal taxpayer money and no outside supervision that can objectively look at climate principles and data. It is similar to the foxes guarding the chicken coop. If advocacy science is not pushed from any of these institutions to prosecute atmospheric CO2 causing severe weather and “climate change” these individuals stand to lose all their “research” money and thus employment. It has become a filthy money-grubbing gravy train that has also led to the corruption of many of the scientific journals who refuse to publish any research that isn’t part of their club of group think that protects the climate racket. Then the political class that funds this garbage uses it to legislate these outrageous green energy programs that won’t work but will cause severe economic stress among the citizens it traps with the surrounding economies.  Ms. Herring claims unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 is causing all the severe weather increases, but with such a sloppy statement, provides no proof or evidence of this as the history of severe weather events has declined across every category for several decades during the warm phase of the PDO, which is exactly what atmospheric science dictates would happen. Here is a look at some data regarding severe weather that Ms. Herring ignores prepared by Tony Heller and uses the official US climatological records:

The most excessive heat waves remain in the 1930’s decade that caused the largest percentage of US observing stations to record temperatures of 95 degF or greater. This clearly shows extreme heat events have been declining as atmospheric CO2 rose, a direct contradiction to their claims. OCCRI only used Oregon’s temperatures for the past few years, which is no relevant comparison to the larger picture, and their time frame is far too small to determine a climate trend from.

The number of severe tornadoes has also declined from the maximum years that occurred during the 1970’s decade. This makes sense because in the 1970’s we were in the cold phase of the PDO, which makes the Gulf of Alaska waters colder and the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean warmer. This ocean cycle shift favors intensifying the latitudinal temperature gradients and thus the liberation of more potential energy during storm development or cyclogenesis. If the cold phase PDO persists for the next 25 years as per the climatological record, we can expect a return to more violent tornadoes, but it will have NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

The number of major hurricanes are also lower today than previous decades which also contradicts the severe weather narrative by CO2. This may increase again because of cold phase PDO, but since there are several factors that determine hurricane intensity not related to sea surface temperature, this remains to be seen.

Looking back further in the temperature proxy record for thousands of years, we find:


  • 5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period  
  • 4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
  • 3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
  • Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period.  It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
  • Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period.  It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
  • 1000 years later, came our current warm period.

OCCRI and Ms. Herring either refuse to consider all these events both recent and proxy or they ignore them because the data ruins their claims and narrative, proof that neither OCCRI or any other institutions promoting climate hysteria and blaming atmospheric CO2 for “climate change” or severe weather are practicing legitimate science, and the deep concern about this was expressed by the late world-renowned hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray from Colorado State University who wrote a searing letter concerning the hijacking of the American Meteorological Society and climate science in general from the corruption of these institutions from within. I share these concerns today, and I believe they have become much worse.

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) – Watts Up With That?

Finally, it is very important to realize that from atmospheric science and founding principles, there was and is no expectation that increasing atmospheric CO2 would have a controlling effect on the Earth’s temperature or climate.

This is because we discovered years ago from basic radiative transfer theory that with water vapor alone, void of any atmospheric CO2, water vapors absorption characteristics are so powerful, that a radiative balance in the troposphere is impermissible due to Earth hydrostatics that demand a vigorous convective overturn to re-establish a hydrostatic balance that is disrupted by the sharp vertical temperature gradient that a radiative balance tries to establish only with water vapors presence. It is not hard to see from this that if CO2 is added to the mix, that with an already established hydrological cycle from water vapors overturn, that any additional energy captured at the surface from atmospheric CO2 is easily taken up as latent heat and given back to the troposphere through convection that allows this energy to be radiated over a wider band of wavelength that is radiated from clouds that are perfect Planck emitters. An astrophysicist by the name of Robert Emden derived the first empirical model of this process with water vapor alone and ran in circles with the likes of Martin Schwarzchild, who developed the radiative transfer equations used in many applications of atmospheric science today.

There is considerable misunderstanding from this by many who believe that CO2 is not only the primary “greenhouse gas” but that it directly warms the atmosphere upon absorbing its infrared radiation.

This is blatantly untrue. Atmospheric CO2 is not the main “greenhouse gas”, water vapor is, and CO2 does not directly warm the troposphere. It actually cools the troposphere as does water vapor in exchange for the warmer surface that it helps produce with water vapor. The energy is given back to the troposphere by convection from the surface that then gives a surplus temperature of approximately 33 degC above the Earth’s black body temperature back to the lower troposphere. This is discussed in “Dynamical and Physical Meteorology” by Haltiner and Martin, Library of Congress Card # 57-8005, Chapter 10, peer reviewed and taught at every major university that offered atmospheric science degrees until climate modelers came on the scene with different ideas that never proved the founding principles wrong, but did supplant those principles with their failed modeling and falsely claim these failed models run superior to the founding work, which they do not and for the reasons already given above. From these principles, it is clear that atmospheric CO2 cannot and is not controlling on the Earth’s climate or temperature. The absorbed infrared radiation from CO2 can only act to slightly enhance the Earth’s hydrological cycle or precipitation systems which is a good thing and productive to global food supply from the enhanced growth and health of plant life.

An excellent, more comprehensive and modern theoretical application of these founding principles in atmospheric science is discussed by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a former NASA radiative transfer expert who has developed the proper relationships regarding the flows of long and shortwave radiation through the Earth’s atmosphere.

Through empirical relationships he has established from the measured radiative flows, he concludes that any non-condensable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere cannot alter the true mean optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere that is maintained by the hydrological cycle. This conclusion mirrors the founding principles from atmospheric science. His latest paper can be found on Dr. Berry’s blog:

Greenhouse Gas Theories And Observed Infrared Absorption Properties Of The Earth’s Atmosphere (

Chuck Wiese


I have no conflicts of interest or am being paid by any special interest or anyone else to write this critique. My purpose of writing it is solely for the public’s education and benefit.  

I do note that the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute is conflicted by the Oregon Legislature that funds this organization and uses their inaccurate claims contained within this report to legislate ridiculous and harmful public policy with that would not be justifiable or possible without a narrative that there is a “climate crisis” for the legislature to create legislation over.

 This funding to OCCRI would stop if OCCRI failed to state there is a “climate crisis” that the legislature could act upon.

 It is a travesty that in this matter, truth in science appears relative to the flow of money rather than the truth from science itself.

In my opinion, the corruption runs so deep that the only way to stop it is to completely cut off funding these institutions for the purpose of any climate research and stop the funding of all “green energy” programs that are profiteering off of government subsidies. This is a racket, not the practice of science.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.