1. Thank you for the update and you continued action in this struggle to get the truth out. Here is hoping your new paper will find a courageous publisher and it gets lots of exposure.

  2. Thank you, most interesting. I have been saying for a long time that the real properties of CO2 are what it is all about. It’s the key card in the whole “House of Cards” that is now the multi-billion climate scam. Its reached the point just like Enron where the politicians have in effect said, “That it’s too big to let fall over, so we must support it”.

    Prove that CO2 does not and never has “Stored” heat, and we will be on the way to bringing this monster crashing down.

    MJE iiii

  3. Very exciting and great work. Thank you! I’m sure “we” all hope that you forge ahead, hammering this on as many platforms and organizations of the world that you can on behalf of 2020 and beyond. Like you said, the truth will set us free. I would love to get back to living a ‘normal’ life with less people around us living in fear over imaginary boogy monsters.

    Do you have strategic plans laid out for further widespread exposure even prior to publishing? Any strategic coalitions in the works or should be built? We need your firepower!

    Would sending this to Andrew Wheeler, EPA be a viable option? WUWT, CFACT, Climate Change Dispatch, etc.?

  4. I am wondering if you might make more use of the term “unphysical” or “un-physical”. You might have to explain the term. I offer two approaches.

    1. Mirriam-Webster: “not according with the doctrines or methods of physics”

    2. Unphysical terms appearing in mathematics applied to physics
    “Sometimes in physics, the mathematics leads to “un-physical solutions or terms”, that are readily tossed by the physicist. For example, when deriving absorption and emission rates for via quantized light-atom interactions in quantum optics class, we toss out 2 terms from the Hamiltonian, on the grounds that they don’t correspond to any observed physical process…”

    Source: StackExchange: Philosophy
    URL: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/41868/unphysical-terms-appearing-in-mathematics-applied-to-physics

  5. Trying to get this message out is very difficult. The sheep don’t want to know and the powers that be don’t want you to know.


  6. Well written and argued. Likely right. I had one minor issue. By my math the atmosphere has a mass of 5.146e18 Kg and one ppm is 5.146 Gt. (I can still divide by factors of 10). If Avogadro is right (I presume he is) 1 ppm by mass = 1 ppm by volume so it is unnecessary to deal with moles to come up with 1 ppmv. Section 2.2 converts 210 Gt to 98 ppm but I think it is more like 41 ppm. Some adjustments to the calculations will be needed if I am right, but the theory seems sound nonetheless. I think politics rather than science underlay the refusal to publish which is consistent with the CO2 hysteria rife in the community today.

  7. I am not a scientist but found your paper very interesting.

    Not clear on the peer reviewed process, has this paper been published in a recognized journal?

    I have continual arguments with my sons on A.G.W and they just throw in back in my face by asking for
    peer reviewed published evidence.

    thanking you in anticipation.

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.