1. At least it did not take long to get their response. I for one will be very interested to see if your succinct reply CCed to Dr. Seitter elicits any further response from him. It is appalling to me that this “prestigious” group are such ideologues that they reject because of a position without any reference to error in your work. I hope you continue to submit this letter to other groups and let us know how it is received.

  2. Alarmists use radiative transfer equations as their mainstay in promoting the ridiculous AGW theory, the difference between energy inflow and outflow will always average zero, which results in equilibrium. Disequilibrium is impossible, at night air cools, it’s impossible for heat to be trapped in some air while the rest cools.

    CO2 lags rising temperature averages.

  3. The latest episode of group-think maneuvering to protect itself. Previous episodes, some of which have appeared here, include:





    Dr. Berry should forward this exchange to relevant members of Congress, like Cruz, and to the WH, like Wheeler of the EPA and now Legates of NOAA. This unscrupulous nonsense will end only when those who block scientific discourse are deprived of federal funds, the receipt of tax dollars that such offenses are designed to protect.

    Banning the flow of federal money is just what Trump is now doing to eliminate Marxist indoctrination in schools and government agencies. It’s time the same correction was imposed on “professional” societies, parties who rely on the same flow of tax dollars yet obstruct the basic mission they claim to advance.

  4. “The science and politics of climate change rest on the core theory described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC’s core theory says nature stayed constant after 1750 and, therefore, human carbon dioxide emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm”. That is what the core theory described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is, as their mandate makes clear.
    I also know about science and it is generally considered to be a discipline that has at its core the desire to search for the truth requiring many things in nature and it should be the desire of those involved in climatology. Sadly, since the subject of climate has become politicized, that desire to find the truth has been overtaken by the knowledge that it can be used as a way to exert control over many aspects of life. I use this UN mandate to explain my contention about the political aspect of the IPCC.
    1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC currently is organized into three Working Groups: Working Group I (WGI) addresses observed and projected changes in climate; Working Group II (WGII) addresses vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation related to climate change; and Working Group III (WGIII) addresses options for mitigation of climate change.

    “Alarmists ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…’
    ‘how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin’s Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks’”

  5. “IPCC argues that ice-core data show the natural CO2 level was always about 280 ppm before 1750. But stomata data proves the natural CO2 level was much higher than 280 ppm several times in the last 1200 years. So, data contradict this IPCC argument”. Does the IPCC have any interest in what the facts are?

    “Plants are wonderfully in tune with their environments, so there are many proxies or signals that we can obtain from fossil plants. We can work out the temperature they lived in, the atmospheric environment, and the carbon dioxide concentration.”
    “It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape. A plant that could get enough carbon dioxide with fewer stomata would have an advantage since it would be better able to conserve its water. Levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere change over time — so at times when the atmosphere is carbon-dioxide-rich, plants can get away with having fewer stomata since each individual stoma will be able to bring in more carbon dioxide. During those high-carbon-dioxide times, plants with fewer stomata will have an advantage and will be common. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels are low, plants need many stomata in order to scrape together enough carbon dioxide to survive. During low-carbon-dioxide times, plants with more stomata will have an advantage and will be common.”

    Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

  6. “What about the peer-reviewed papers that say IPCC’s core theory is true? All the key papers assume IPCC’s core theory is true before they analyze their data. That is circular reasoning and not evidence that IPCC’s core theory is true”.
    When one studies the ‘peer-reviewed papers’ that the IPCC claims makes their case for them that it is humans and the CO₂ that is created due to the use of fossil fuels that causes the forest fires on the West coast of America or the flooding of the Yangtze Basin in China, that one will believe basically nothing that the IPCC puts forth; such as their ‘hockey stick graph’ to get rid of the pesky Medieval Warm Period after having shown the MWP in the 1990 1st Assessment Report.

    In October 2011 the investigative journalist Donna Laframboise published her “Delinquent Teenager” expose of the IPCC’s reliance on grey-lit and its wholesale infiltration by Greenpeace-style activist authors. Other tidbits included documentation about graduate students and sub-PhDs mysteriously doubling as “world-leading” scientists to become IPCC authors, lead authors and even top-rung “co-ordinating lead authors”. She also revealed how quality-assurance rules supposedly binding on IPCC writers and reviewers were routinely flouted. Within weeks Professor Ross McKitrick, a prominent sceptic, issued his own documentation of why the IPCC should either shape up or be replaced by a non-political scientific body.

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.