1. Ed, I’m already signed up, but just got a banner inviting me (or anyone else) to sign up for your FREE emails.

    Maybe it’s an auto generated thing, but if possible edit it to omit FREE?

    Emails, apart from those from hucksters, are free to begin with and nobody anywhere signs up to receive emails they’re expected to pay for.

    I enjoy learning from your work, so please don’t think I’m dissing you, as the young people say!


    1. Hi Dee, Thank you for your suggestion. I reset the conditions for the popup to appear.

      Now, the popup should check your IP address with your file in Drip (my email host) to see if you are signed up for my Climate emails. If it finds that you are signed up, then it should not open the popup for you.

      However, if you are travelling or use another computer and therefore have a different IP address than the one you signed up with, then maybe you will still see the popup.

      Please tell me if these new conditions work for you.

      1. Yes, looks to have worked.

        The acceptance of the theory of a naturally “balanced” carbon cycle concept is faulty to begin with if it deems carbon from human activities using *natural* resources as man made emissions and *not* natural emissions, which by necessity deems human activity, progress and evolution as unnatural, which it does.

        This clearly can only be endorsed and promoted by an antihuman cohort who somehow managed to arrive at deeming it natural for humanity to have strictly maintained an animal-like hand to mouth existence, the discovery and use of fossil fuels as natural resources for warmth heat and energy possibly originally never envisaged and now apparently no longer permitted.

        This policy if implemented rapidly on a global scale , as is demanded by the UNIPCC, will quickly rewind the economies of developed countries to match them to the economies of developing countries, which is perhaps what the UN means when it calls for Climate Justice, a concept which it has some difficulty defining.

        It is a point rarely discussed due to it’s difficult conclusions but goes hand in hand with being asked to believe “natural” emissions should have stayed at 280ppm.

        My intention is not to sidetrack or undermine your carbon cycle research by saying this.

        I fully respect and understand if you don’t wish to publish this comment on what is after all, your platform. Perhaps it is a discussion for a different day.


        1. Dear Dee,

          Your comment does not at all “undermine” my Preprint #3. Rather, it supports it.

          My biggest job, now that my Preprint #3 is posted, is to explain what it means so the public can better understand it. Today, for example, I updated the Abstract and Conclusions.

          My Preprint #3 shows that the IPCC “fake” human carbon cycle is a scientific fraud of the highest order. Please see my new Abstract and Conclusions that explain this in a little more detail.

  2. Now I agree with most you have given your opinion on but there is not one link that supports what you say. Even when you claim to have proof you refer to your own website. This will not allow us to prove climate ScanGuru is a scam. We need links to empirical evidence that supports our claims?

  3. Hi Ed, I agree with Dee, it does get irritating everytime we open up one of your links the screen is immediately blanked out by your “Sign up free” messages.
    Apart from that, you have done some fantastic work on the climate hoax, like a number of other great scientists, it’s almost impossible to get the truth out to the masses.
    Here in the UK the majority of the population pay £157 pa to obtain reliable climate science. Today is an excellent example, how can you compete with this?

  4. Your conclusions are correct, of cource. The problem is that most people are unable to follow your argumentation, however well presented.

    My advise, as mentioned in earlier comments, to you and to other climate sceptics, is to use the very simple logical arguments available. E x the fact that the CLIMATE POLICIES applied achieve exactly nothing, they just redistribute CO2 emissions, but do not reduce them. Reductions require a global CO2 tax. That is not what alarmists are proposing, which proofs that they are not serious about their claims about saving the globe from a climate disaster. They have other leftwing reasons for persuing their propaganda.

    Even leading republican politicians seem unaware of your arguments, as you are now telling us. They are in that sense committing suiside. Congratulations!

    But one can understand that it takes some courage to go again public perceptions. That is why it is so crucial to simplify the argumentation in order to reach the average voter. Another example is to compare with warm periods in pre-fossil times, like the Middle Ages. Very easy to understand. No university diplomas required.

  5. According to the NASA heat (power flux) balance computer model graphic (attached and/or linked) 163.3 W/m^2 make it to the surface.
    18.4 W/m^2 upwell from the surface through non-radiative processes, i.e. conduction and convection.
    86.4 W/m^2 upwell from the surface through latent processes, i.e. evaporation and condensation.
    The balance upwells 163.3-18.4-86.4-0.6 = 57.9 W/m^2 as LWIR.

    That’s it!
    The energy balance is closed!

    But what about this!?
    LWIR: 398.2 total upwelling – 57.9 from balance – 0.6 absorbed = 340.3??
    An “extra” 340.3 W/m^2 have just appeared out of thin air!!!???
    So where does this 398.2 W/m^2 upwelling “extra” energy come from?
    Well, actually the 398.2 W/m^2 is a theoretical “what if” S-B heat radiation calculation for an ideal, 1.0 emissivity, Black Body with a surface temperature of 289 K or 16 C.

    The SINGLE amount of LWIR energy leaving the surface has just been calculated by TWO different methods!! and then combined to effectively double the amount!!!! much like entering your paycheck twice in your checking account register.

    398.2 is THEORETICAL!!!!!
    340.3 is NOT REAL!!!
    340.3 VIOLATES conservation of energy!!!!!

    And, no, it is NOT measured except by amateurs who don’t understand how IR instruments work or emissivity and assume 1.0 when emissivity is in theoretical fact 57.9/398.2=0.145 or in actual fact 57.9/163.3=0.355

    There is no 398.2 upwelling “extra” energy, there is no 340.3 “trapping” and “back” radiating “extra” energy, no RGHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
    Colorado Springs, CO


    As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science:

  6. Glad to see your most recent version , it’s much better.
    However, you sill mention politics at the end, which in my humble opinion Insults me, as it assumes that the average American voter is stupid and can’t see the facts and judge for himself (herself).
    My grandsons would resent it.

    1. Dear Zvi,
      Please tell me where you find the politics you refer to in my Preprint #3. Please tell me the page and section number and past in a quote.

      Then, please tell me why your grandsons would resent it.

      I have tried to keep politics out of my Preprint #3 because its goal is to address the science.

      However, my public oriented posts do get into politics, which is necessary because the climate alarmists have turned the science of climate physics into a political circus.

      1. Dear Dr Ed,

        Can´t follow you all the way here. While fully subscribing to your conclusions, I see no point in separating science and policy – they are intertwined. Even more so since IPCC and other alarmists have chosen to rely on an absolutely false interpretation of science, but also – and more harmfully – of basic economic logic. Plus a total disregard for democratic principles.

        The good cause would be better served, I believe, if the very simple economic arguments were allowed to play a more central role in the debate. While the technical issues, beyound reach for 9 out of 10, can still be dealt with between experts in physics and other disciplines involved. To fight corrupt collegues, people knowingly lieing for money and promotions, is surely more important than to teach not-so-basic physics to complete ignorants.

        Many aspects are relevant, but for winning the war the insights of non-experts, average men and women, will determine the outcome.

  7. Thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper dr. Ed. In my case this latest preprint paper 3 is to a large degree understandable and also comprehensive with a broad perspective. This makes a difference when trying to get to grips/communicate with both politicians and the public/press here in Norway. Had the pleasure to include some basic points from your physical model in a talk I gave to a rather diversified group of 200 people here in Stavanger recently – a meeting staged by Rotary.
    Look forward to see your final published paper.

  8. Dear Dr Ed,
    I thank you for you superb paper. I have referenced to it in an objection to proposed Draft legislation in South Africa. The proposed bill was Climate Change Bill [B9 – 2022]. You can view it here if you wish to do so.https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/climate-2022/
    My submission stated.
    Dear Ms AF Muthambi, MP Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Environment, Forestry and Fisheries,
    c/o Ms Tyhileka Madubela..

    No I do not support the proposed Climate Change Bill (B9 — 2022), as introduced by the Minister on 18 February, 2022.

    My top concern is Carbon budgets, emissions, removals.

    I reject the proposed legislation. This relies on the IPCC’s fictitious claim. It has now been shown Physics proves IPCC’s core theory is wrong. Here is the evidence in International Journal of Science and Philosophy. https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/


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.