Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Decision on Style of Discussion in this Negative Climate Change Thread



Protocol # 1 - "Generally Accepted Statements" Model (Originally Proposed by Bob Armstrong, and currently in use in this group)

The Operation of the Model

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.
It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation. We could still aim for intellectual rigor and respectful debate, but the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.
But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Support Reasons

A general exchange of ideas between participants of a group is very beneficial.

But it generally does not produce anything else concrete because of controversy within the group on various issues.

This Protocol # 1 invites the group a step above and beyond! It asks if, among the debate against other participants, leading to an agreement to disagree, the group can produce something more? Cooperation is proposed........come to what all commonly agree on in generally accepted Statements! This is helpful to all participants, and shows where the real sticking points are. As well, if wanted, a member can share the list of generally accepted Statements they have achieved with others, for their evaluation. It is clear that this protocol does not put forward any insurmountable task - generally accepted Statements abound here now on negative climate change, in my TRN thread on Facebook, in my Democratic Marxist Global Forum on Facebook, and here on CT in the Human Self-Government thread (On government, Libertarianism and now Democratic Marxism)......far from being insurmountable, it is being wildly successful. It is a most valuable tool in a polarized group, and in a polarized society, where all that is happening is that the two sides yell at each other, and neither side listens to the other......both sides just keep yelling, knowing they will never convert over the opposition.

This protocol is based on the belief that people of good faith can have a "conversation", be respectful despite disagreement, and agree on some things both sides believe to be true. AND they can remain friends, and go have a beer together.

The free expression of ideas, as is usual in social media formats, is in no way removed.......put forward your opinions.

It is true, perhaps, that this does alter somewhat the flow of discussion (It has not done that here......lots of opposing views). But if something "concrete" is being produced, along with free discussion, then the inconvenience to the flow of discussion seems acceptable, and worthwhile.

Protocol # 2 - "Free Form Discussion" Protocol (Proposed by Sid Belzberg - Post # 1692 - 23/8/26)

Each participant can express their views fully, sometimes in opposition, without the necessity of trying to reach majority agreement Statements.

Support Reasons

This protocol better allows participants to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.This protocol aims for intellectual rigour and respectful debate, with the emphasis on the exchange of ideas (rather than on agreement).

It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation.

It may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Decision to Be Made by CT'ers

Which Protocol is preferred by you? And why?

Processing

There will be one week for comments (Deadline: Sat., Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

1. "Controversy within the Group" - it is true that you and I seem to be the main conversationalists and Statement Producers at the moment. But others have also participated actively in the past - Bob Gillanders, Dilip Panjwani, Pargat Perrer, Fred Harvey, and some others (Sorry if any name has slipped my very bad memory). Then, there are daily about 40 CT viewers who have not come forward to participate, but are obviously feeling that it is worth their time, and the few extra clicks, to keep up with the Negative Climate Change issue (This is most common on many social platforms......silence does not mean non-interest.....some prefer to avoid "conflict", while others seem to get a rush from it ; some CT'er in this category might let me know if I am right on this point). So, though I agree that the "Controversy" seems to be that the two of us have a few /many differing opinions and seem often in opposing camps that already exist in society, we do reflect a larger controversial conversation going on in the world. So I don't think we can just simply reduce the issue to our little differing of opinions!

2. "Discrepancy" in Secretarial Approach to Statements - I acknowledge that when I wrote that particular reason (Controversial - no common statement possible), I had a flash of concern about it, but didn't know what it was, so charged on. The difficulty, I think, is our taking on Challenging both by Revision Challenge, and by Opposition Challenge.....they are different animals, though appearing similar.

So let's examine:

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re a Revision Challenge?

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.

But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re an Opposition Challenge?

[Note: Sid asked for a discussion on the Protocol. I hope this launches a good one.

But Sid also raised whether our Protocol was being inconsistently applied in the case of my comments on procedure re Statement # 9. Once we are agreed on the protocol, and I have firm direction, then I will answer Sid's 2nd concern.]

Processing: There is one week for determining guidance for me by settling our Protocol (Deadline: Saturday, Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Hi Bob ,

After following the detailed protocols and the discussions around them, I've started to wonder if the attempt to reach "generally accepted statements" might actually be hindering the primary objective of this group: to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.

Given the limited number of active participants and the wide range of opinions—both within this group and in the wider public—it may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Here's my proposal: What if we switch to a free-form discussion model? This would allow each participant to express their views fully without the necessity of arriving at a consensus. It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation. We could still aim for intellectual rigor and respectful debate, but the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.

I believe this could open up the dialogue, encourage more participation, and possibly be more engaging for the silent observers among us.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

1. "Controversy within the Group" - it is true that you and I seem to be the main conversationalists and Statement Producers at the moment. But others have also participated actively in the past - Bob Gillanders, Dilip Panjwani, Pargat Perrer, Fred Harvey, and some others (Sorry if any name has slipped my very bad memory). Then, there are daily about 40 CT viewers who have not come forward to participate, but are obviously feeling that it is worth their time, and the few extra clicks, to keep up with the Negative Climate Change issue (This is most common on many social platforms......silence does not mean non-interest.....some prefer to avoid "conflict", while others seem to get a rush from it ; some CT'er in this category might let me know if I am right on this point). So, though I agree that the "Controversy" seems to be that the two of us have a few /many differing opinions and seem often in opposing camps that already exist in society, we do reflect a larger controversial conversation going on in the world. So I don't think we can just simply reduce the issue to our little differing of opinions!

2. "Discrepancy" in Secretarial Approach to Statements - I acknowledge that when I wrote that particular reason (Controversial - no common statement possible), I had a flash of concern about it, but didn't know what it was, so charged on. The difficulty, I think, is our taking on Challenging both by Revision Challenge, and by Opposition Challenge.....they are different animals, though appearing similar.

So let's examine:

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re a Revision Challenge?

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.

But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re an Opposition Challenge?

[Note: Sid asked for a discussion on the Protocol. I hope this launches a good one.

But Sid also raised whether our Protocol was being inconsistently applied in the case of my comments on procedure re Statement # 9. Once we are agreed on the protocol, and I have firm direction, then I will answer Sid's 2nd concern.]

Processing: There is one week for determining guidance for me by settling our Protocol (Deadline: Saturday, Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Statement # 9 is not generally accepted It is subject to controversy outside, and inside, this group. Statement # 9 should be stricken from the list of Statements.
"Thank you for your input on this important matter, Bob. However, I'd like to point out a discrepancy in your approach. The criterion you use to strike off Statement #9—namely, 'controversy outside and within the group'—appears to be inconsistently applied. One must question whether this is a universally agreed-upon criterion or one that you're employing selectively when a statement challenges your perspective.

Furthermore, the term 'controversy within the group' seems to be narrowly defined in this context as disagreement between you and me. That's not an adequate representation of 'group consensus.' If we're collecting statements that are generally accepted, then we should either rigorously define what 'generally accepted' means or ensure a more democratic process for determining which statements meet that criteria.

Would you be open to discussing a more structured methodology for including or excluding statements?"

[Sid Belzberg]

https://vigilantnews.com/post/why-ar...s-is-behind-it


Why Are There So Many Fires? Dr. David Martin Unveils What He Thinks Is Behind It


These fires may just be the smoke signals of a bigger problem lurking beneath the flames.
By
The Vigilant Fox
The whole world seems like it's on fire. Fires are ravaging Maui, Canada, Greece, France—you name it. But when you dig deeper, something's off. Government mismanagement, questionable land acquisitions, and even newly minted laws raise eyebrows. Are we witnessing a bad wave of natural, runaway wildfires, or is there something else going on?

Maps lit up with fire indicators tell a worrying story; this is a global crisis, affecting our air, our health, and potentially, our future. We're not just talking about isolated events or simple accidents. The world's attention needs to be on this issue because when you connect the dots, it's evident that these fires may just be the smoke signals of a bigger problem lurking beneath the flames.
So, what's really fueling these fires, and who stands to gain from the ashes?


Seth Holehouse, AKA Man in America, invited technologist and entrepreneur Dr. David Martin to his program recently. Dr. Martin suggested that this wave of fires is not just a mere natural calamity, but that a deeper, darker agenda is at play.

Dr. Martin made an intriguing comparison between the current series of forest fires and historical events like the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression. While popular narratives label the Dust Bowl as an environmental catastrophe, Dr. Martin argues that it was actually a banking crisis aimed at crippling family farms to benefit industrial agriculture.
A farmer and his two sons during a dust storm in Cimarron County, Oklahoma, April 1936. Iconic photo entitled "Dust Bowl Cimarron County, Oklahoma" taken by Arthur Rothstein. Credit: Wikipedia.
When you observe the puzzling behavior of those leading the scare campaign about CO2 emissions, it's strange to see them allowing forest fires to ignite and spread unchecked. It makes you question their intentions, considering we've always been told that carbon dioxide is harmful. So why are they contributing to increased CO2 levels by allowing trees, which absorb carbon, to be destroyed?
“Well, the answer is land reappropriation,” Dr. Martin concluded.


“That's what it's about. It's about reappropriating land. And the best way to reappropriate land is to have a fire. That has been the case since the Old Testament. So, this is not a new thing. This has been around for thousands and thousands of years. When humans cannot win on a fair playing field, they use fire. And they use fire to destroy an old appropriation of land and reappropriate it to a new use.”

“There's no question that what is going on in Canada right now is a massive, massive, massive land grab,” continued Dr. Martin, “where the state will come in its largesse and propose new development of what? Of things that will be pro-state. That's not a human recovery.”

“And by the way, as much as Maui may or may not be the sum of a series of electrical failures, there is no question that the power systems in Maui were not managed to diminish the risk of fire. We will not say, and I will not say they necessarily intentionally set them. I'm not going to get into that conversation. What I will say is that very simple safety protocols, like if lines are down, don't send energy back into a down line. Those kinds of things were not done. So, were some of those fires, without question, at least negligently set? The answer is without question. The evidence is unambiguous. And by the way, even NPR talks about that evidence.”

“So the fact is we know that what we have is a situation where this ongoing campaign of terror is about reallocating, redistributing, and reappropriating resources into state control,” Dr. Martin concluded. “And there's no question that that's what happened in Maui. There's no question that's what's happening in Canada. And there's no question that that's what's happening in fires that are going on all around the world, remarkably, in places where climate change activists say they're the most concerned with climate change. They're pumping CO2 into the air. So, this hypocrisy is necessary to create the cognitive dissonance.”

Dr. Martin’s full interview with Seth Holehouse is available to watch via the video below:

Want to see more content like this? Subscribe to Vigilant News below to receive updates on the latest and most newsworthy stories.

[Sid Belzberg]

‘A gunfight without bullets’: Firefighters faced down blaze with dry hydrants, no communications

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/...ommunications/


Firefighters on the front line in Lahaina are telling harrowing stories of watching their own town burn — while the water ran out and they were forced to flee.

[Sid Belzberg]

Greek police arrest dozens for arson as EU’s largest-ever wildfires rage



By Eleni Giokos, Xiaofei Xu and Niamh Kennedy, CNN
Published 9:14 AM EDT, Fri August 25, 2023

Smoke rises during an evacuation process at the Choban village as the wildfire continues in Maritsa region, Greece on August 23, 2023.Ayhan Mehmet/Anadolu Agency/Getty ImagesCNN —
Greek authorities have arrested dozens of people on arson-related charges as deadly wildfires – the largest ever recorded in the European Union – rage across the country.

Wildfires in Mount Parnitha, north of the Greek capital Athens, are still out of control Friday, with more forest destroyed overnight.

The biggest fire front line in Greece remains near the northeastern town of Alexandroupolis, in the Evros region.

The burned body of a man was found on a rural road near Dadia national park, near the border with Turkey, state media AMNA reported Friday.

Earlier this week, 18 people were found dead near a village in northern Greece. The fire brigade said Tuesday they may have been migrants. Another person was killed in a fire northwest of the capital Athens on Monday.

Destroyed corral where eighteen bodies were found following a wildfire near the village of Avantas.Alexandros Avramidis/Reuters
Greek police have made 79 arson related arrests, Greek government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis told public broadcaster EPT Friday.

“What is happening is not just impermissible, but obscene and criminal,” Greek Climate Crisis Minister Vassilis Kikilias said in a statement.

“You are committing a crime against the country. You will not be spared. We will find you and you will be held accountable in Justice,” Kikilas added.

With more than 73,000 hectares burned, the fires in Alexandroupolis are officially the largest wildfires ever recorded in the European Union, according to EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Janez Lenarčič.

“We must continue strengthening national and collective prevention and preparedness efforts in view of more brutal fire seasons,” Lenarčič said Thursday on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Across Greece, wildfires have burned through 1.3 billion square meters (130,000 hectares) so far, an EU record, according to the European Forest Fire Information System.

On Friday, CNN witnessed helicopters coming every couple of minutes, dropping up to 11 tons of water on to the wildfires.

Officials also told CNN’s team in Parnitha that helicopters had to stop working overnight, which made containing the fires more difficult.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/europ...ntl/index.html

[Sid Belzberg]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement 9 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1646 – 23/8/15)

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support: Sid Belzberg – Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Methane and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts


Nitrous Oxide and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

---

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Opposition Challenge - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1685 - 23/8/25

Methane & Negative Climate Change

Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO₂ has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)

Nitrous Oxide & Negative Climate Change

a. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years, where it can be converted into nitrogen oxides that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and expose the Earth to more solar radiation, thereby damaging crops and human health.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/l...greenhouse-gas

b. Despite its increasing role in global warming and effect on the ozone layer, little has been done to rein in this climate pollutant. One big reason: agriculture.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...ure-livestock/

Conclusion

The production of methane, and the use of Nitrous Oxide fertilizers, in farming, contributes to humanity's most pressing problem of negative climate change. Farming must adapt so as to lessen its contribution to negative climate change.

Sid's Statement # 9 is not generally accepted It is subject to controversy outside, and inside, this group. Statement # 9 should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Should such happen, I intend to propose alternate statements, one on methane, and one of Nitrous Oxide fertilizers, to see if I can get generally accepted Statements on these points re farming.

Processing

There will now be one week for CT'ers to weigh in. You can either post "Support Reasons", supporting Sid's proposal, or, "Supplemental Challenge" Reasons, supporting Bob A's Challenge (Deadline: Friday, 23/9/1 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Participant)

2[/SUB] has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)

This statement fails to refute Dr Happer et al analysis that despite the higher warming power, the percentage is not high enough to be a significant factor.

deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and expose the Earth to more solar radiation, thereby damaging crops and human health.

This statement fails to refute the fact again as per Dr. Happer et al that the rate of increase rate of increase of N2O molecules which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. Hence again is not a significant driver of climate change or damage to the ozone layer nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

Further information about why the Ozone layer hysteria is long ago debunked fraudulent junk science, a particular genre of "science" that BobA seems to be a great fan of.

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?
Additional material August 2006.
Major 'Oops!' September 2007: Chemists poke holes in ozone theory: Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.
The Montreal Protocol and nasty countries (read: the U.S.) wishing to retain use of critical chemicals alleged to harm the "ozone layer" continue to generate considerable press. What is it all about?
As every schoolboy should by now have read, total columnar ozone (the amount over a given point) would only amount to a paltry couple of millimetres if brought down to sea level. So, does this mean that our defence, our critical solar shield we call the ozone layer, is a thin and fragile membrane about the atmosphere, finite and being worn threadbare by assault from anthropogenic (human produced) chemicals? Hardly, although one could be forgiven for having such an impression given the hysteria generated by various chemophobes and misanthropes. Stratospheric ozone is not a fixed and finite resource but is constantly created - and destroyed - by solar radiation.
The table below contains thumbnail graphics of global monthly average ozone levels derived from Earth Probe TOMS. Click on the thumbnail to load a copy of NASA's original 640 x 480 image in .gif format. The date range covers all available EP-TOMS data and the months highlighted here are arbitrarily chosen as quarterly from September (greatest Antarctic Ozone Anomaly, incorrectly described as "the ozone hole" by the press, actually a localised seasonal reduction).
So, what are we looking at?
September, and spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when returning sunlight powers significantly increased ozone destructive reactions in the super-cold polar stratosphere and winter-strengthened circumpolar winds reduce atmospheric mixing from the currently ozone-overloaded temperate zone (lowest South Polar and highest southern temperate zone levels are recorded in this season). Tropical levels are typically at their highest and Arctic levels about their most moderate at this time of year.
December: South Polar vortex has largely collapsed and southern temperate and polar regions are ozone replete. Southern tropical levels are moderate while northern tropical regions demonstrate some depletion as Arctic levels rise dramatically.
March: massive North Polar and Northern Temperate ozone levels are observed along with low-moderate levels in the Southern Hemisphere. Note that there is no Arctic ozone anomaly. This is not because so-called ODS (Ozone Depleting Substances) are "map-heavy" and all fall to the South Pole. In fact, anthropogenic emissions of these alleged nasties is significantly higher in the land- and population-dense Northern Hemisphere. The difference between the poles is temperature - or rather, the lack of it. Ozone-destructive reactions are facilitated by Polar Stratospheric Clouds which are rare in the more moderate North and seasonal in the super-cold South.
http://junksciencearchive.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html


Sid's Statement # 9 is not generally accepted It is subject to controversy outside, and inside, this group. Statement # 9 should be stricken from the list of Statements.
"Thank you for your input on this important matter, Bob. However, I'd like to point out a discrepancy in your approach. The criterion you use to strike off Statement #9—namely, 'controversy outside and within the group'—appears to be inconsistently applied. One must question whether this is a universally agreed-upon criterion or one that you're employing selectively when a statement challenges your perspective.

Furthermore, the term 'controversy within the group' seems to be narrowly defined in this context as disagreement between you and me. That's not an adequate representation of 'group consensus.' If we're collecting statements that are generally accepted, then we should either rigorously define what 'generally accepted' means or ensure a more democratic process for determining which statements meet that criteria.

Would you be open to discussing a more structured methodology for including or excluding statements?"

This rephrasing aims to maintain the essence of your original response while also providing a more structured, less confrontational approach to discussing the issue.

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement 9 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1646 – 23/8/15)

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support: Sid Belzberg – Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Methane and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts


Nitrous Oxide and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

---

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Opposition Challenge - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1685 - 23/8/25

Methane & Negative Climate Change

Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO₂ has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)

Nitrous Oxide & Negative Climate Change

a. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years, where it can be converted into nitrogen oxides that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and expose the Earth to more solar radiation, thereby damaging crops and human health.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/l...greenhouse-gas

b. Despite its increasing role in global warming and effect on the ozone layer, little has been done to rein in this climate pollutant. One big reason: agriculture.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...ure-livestock/

Conclusion

The production of methane, and the use of Nitrous Oxide fertilizers, in farming, contributes to humanity's most pressing problem of negative climate change. Farming must adapt so as to lessen its contribution to negative climate change.

Sid's Statement # 9 is not generally accepted It is subject to controversy outside, and inside, this group. Statement # 9 should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Should such happen, I intend to propose alternate statements, one on methane, and one of Nitrous Oxide fertilizers, to see if I can get generally accepted Statements on these points re farming.

Processing

There will now be one week for CT'ers to weigh in. You can either post "Support Reasons", supporting Sid's proposal, or, "Supplemental Challenge" Reasons, supporting Bob A's Challenge (Deadline: Friday, 23/9/1 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms]

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution.
[Note 1: We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
Note 2: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Revision Challenge - Bob Armstrong (Proposer) - Post # 1684 - 23/8/24

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

[Note: I am unclear as to why some expert measurements of CO2 are in the thousands ppm and others are in the hundreds ppm........I, until corrected, have opted for the latter]


Revision Reasons:

The significance of the Industrial Revolution on CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on CO2 to have some common factual Statement for future Statements & debate. The current facts are somewhat inaccurate in the Statement, and it is incomplete. Whether a generally accepted Statement on the role of CO2 in human life is possible is unclear (See proposed Statements # 10 [Post 1678 - 23/8/23] and # 11 [Post # 1683 - 23/8/24])


Processing

There shall be one week (Deadline: Thurs., Aug. 31 @ 11:59 PM EDT) for a "Challenge" to the proposed revised Statement # 6 and the Reasons in Support. If there is no Challenge, then the revised Statement # 6 is then generally accepted and replaces the old Statement # 6 on the list of Statement.

Once the Statement has been settled, if the revision has been defeated, the Challenge by Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 - 23/4/29), perhaps amended by him by that time should he wish, will be processed. If the revision has been passed, then Sid's challenge has become moot.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 11 (Proposed - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1670 - 23/8/21)

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers


Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Processing: Statement # 11 is now open to "Opposition Challenge"; deadline: Mon., Aug. 28 @ 11:59 PM EDT (one week). If there is no Challenge, then the Statement is "generally accepted", and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Note: Apologies I did not catch this one sooner; the deadline runs from the date of formal posting of the Statement & Support Reasons - Sid had complied]

[Bob Armstrong]

Group Secretary Ruling - Substantial

Ruling # S1

There shall be put forward no Statement on the cause of current Canadian wildfires.

Support

There is great controversy outside this group, and inside, as to the cause of current Canadian wildfires (Natural, Accidental Human, Deliberate Human [arson]). A generally accepted Statement is not possible.

Processing

After one week, no CT'er came forward formally to Challenge this Ruling. In fact, the Group Secretary posted Support for the Ruling.

Note: Secretary Rulings Procedure: In order to Challenge a Ruling, the Challenger must propose his/her alternate, substantial, generally accepted Statement. This way, CT'ers can consider it when dealing with whether or not to accept the Secretary Ruling.

Conclusion: Ruling # S1 is generally accepted and joins the list of Secretary Rulings.

[Note: This is a complete answer to the question by Sid Belzberg (Post # 1675 - 23/8/23): "What is this about Bob? When you don't like the narrative you don't put up the statement?"]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.
[In Layman's Terms"]

Statement # 6 (Proposed - Minor Group Secretary Editing)


For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution.
[Note 1: We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
Note 2: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Group Secretary Ruling # S1:

It is mandatory that when a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons (Executive Summary format preferable).

Consequence:

Since the recent passing of this new Ruling, the Group Secretary has determined that it should be retroactive to any still in process, prior Statements. This only affects Statement # 6.

Processing: Since the Statement # 6 was proposed by Bob A (As Participant), he now has one week to put forward his Support Reasons (Deadline: Wed., Aug. 30 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Part 3 (Of 3 Parts; See Parts 1 & 2 above)

The Climate Money Machine



Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative,

Mr. Lindzen said “because it’s a hoax.”
Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudoscience.”

“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet,” Mr. Happer said. “I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”

The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.

“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels if suddenly there were no climate change emergency,” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”

Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.

Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as by non-profits including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which paid out $458 million since 2014.

“Going back to [19]88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.

“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist,” he said. “By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”

Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson stated: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/articl...a-hoax-5460699

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Processing: Statement # 10 is now open to "Opposition Challenge"; deadline: Wed., Aug. 30 @ 11:59 PM EDT (one week). If there is no Challenge, then the Statement is "generally accepted", and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Part 2 (Of 3 Parts)

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.

“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true,” he said. “People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

An example of misleading data used by the EPA as proof of global warming is shown in the chart below, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen claimed.
EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Source: NOAA/NCEI).
“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” they state. “Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows - a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”

By contrast, the scientists presented the following table, which indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today.
This data indicates that heat waves were more severe in the 1930s than today. (Source: EPA).The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for Climate Change


Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it is “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”

“The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Mr. Happer said. “Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”
The Price of Dissent


Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter that academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative.

“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said. He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” he said. “They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter because I already have status. But it would matter a lot if I were younger and I had a career that I was trying to make.”

In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”

Ms. Curry, the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said that when she published a study that claimed hurricanes were increasing in intensity, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star; I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”

When several researchers questioned her findings, she investigated their claims and concluded that her critics were correct.

“Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said. But when she went public with that fact, she was shunned, she said and pushed out of academia.

Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale, once he began to question the climate narrative.

“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser told The Epoch Times that he, too, was abruptly canceled from giving a speech on climate at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25.

Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”

He said that climate is a self-regulating process and that more clouds form when temperatures rise, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect. Although he agrees that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he argued that the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.

However, only days before his IMF discussion was to take place, Mr. Clauser received an email indicating that the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn't want the event to happen. An assistant who was coordinating the event wrote to Mr. Clauser: “When I arranged this the Director was very happy about it but things have evidently changed.”

The IMF’s current policy on climate change is that “large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2° [Celcius] or less.”

[See Part 3 below; Part 1 above)

Bob A (As Group Secretary)